The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and K shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and Defendant K.

1. The entry of the documents submitted after the lapse of the period for submission of the statement of reasons for appeal shall be considered to the extent of supplement in case of appeal;

A. On August 3, 2017, Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) submitted by the defense counsel of the Defendant, there is only an assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and there is no assertion about the illegality of sentencing.

The Defendant, at the first trial date ( September 13, 2017) of the trial in the first instance trial, asserted an improper sentencing in addition to the Defendant’s oral and written notice of acceptance of the record of trial to the Defendant, but the Defendant was served on July 14, 2017. The foregoing argument of the Defendant’s above unfair sentencing is an assertion after the lapse of the submission period for the reasons for appeal, and thus, is not determined.

① On November 1, 2015, the Defendant recognized the facts charged against the Defendant in the lower court as to the part denying the Defendant, and indicated that the Defendant asserted the remainder of the charges (1350 pages of the trial record) and the reasons for appeal that the case X accepted on or before November 1, 2015 (A), and F accepted the case.

The Defendant was actually involved in the process of the individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy of theO of the law office, and managed and supervised the employees, and the Defendant did not violate Article 34(3) of the Defense Justice because there was no fact that he received money from the employees as a consideration for lending the name.

② Even if the defendant distributed profits to a person who is not an attorney-at-law, the defendant cannot be punished for the reason that he/she violated Article 34(5) of the Act.

③ Since the Defendant spent the costs higher than the amount of the additional collection recognized by the lower court for the handling of individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy cases and the operation of the office, the Defendant shall deduct the said costs from the amount of the additional collection.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not conspired and process to commit the crime of violation of the defensive justice in B, and ②.