Defendant

All appeals filed by A, E, and Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the statement in the statement of reasons for appeal filed after Defendant A’s lawful period of reasons for appeal elapsed, the purport of the court below’s sentence (the suspended sentence of two years, 200 hours, community service, confiscation, and 159, 946, 554 won, etc.) is to be too unreasonable, and thus, it should be deducted from the additional collection charge (the stamp and delivery fee of KRW 37,164,760, 29, 130, 48, 96, 082, etc.).

B. Defendant E (1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A et al. recognized that Defendant A et al. provided an office and lent the name to a certified judicial scrivener to prepare and submit documents related to personal rehabilitation as a matter of a certified judicial scrivener. However, the above Defendants had never been able to deal with legal affairs in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act or erred by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles. 2) In consideration of the various circumstances of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (a fine of KRW 5 million

C. A prosecutor 1) The lower court calculated the amount of an accomplice L as a total of KRW 250,80,000 by calculating the amount to be collected as a total of KRW 250,80,000, but the amount of a surcharge to be collected as to L was determined as KRW 48,450,00 in the process of a trial on L (Seoul District Court Decision 2014DaMa1615). Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendants’ actual distribution of money and valuables to L, who are accomplices, should have deliberated on the amount of money and valuables, deducted the remaining amount, and collected the remaining amount, taking account of the various circumstances of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence was erroneous and erroneous. 2) In so doing, the lower court sentenced Defendant A, who was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for two years, 200 hours, confiscation, and 159,946,54 won, and Defendant B’s suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for two years, 200 hours, community service hours, 1204 hours, 184 hours and 10.