The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The crime of 1 and 3 of the judgment of the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 6 months, and Article 2 of the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds for appeal against each violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which was modified by the mistake of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles, do not separately state the grounds for appeal against each violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

1) AH had a claim for the construction cost that was not received even after the construction of the T Hospital was conducted, and the Defendant occupied the building and site of the T Hospital based on the claim for the construction cost after consultation with B. Thus, the Defendant’s possession of the said building and site does not constitute an auction interference. 2) The Defendant did not have received KRW 300 million by deceiving A to receive KRW 3

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment for each of the crimes listed in the first sentence of Article 2014 and the second sentence of Article 188, the second sentence, and the second sentence of Article 2014 and the second sentence of Article 208: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months, the second sentence of Article 2014 and the second sentence of Article 188-2(b), and (c) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the part of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below 2014Kadan188 of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below is that the prosecutor received or promised to receive money or goods in return for handling legal affairs, because he was paid at the time of complete resolution, even if he is not an attorney-at-law," and that Article 2 (3) of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below is that "Defendant A dealt with legal affairs in return for handling legal affairs, such as receiving money or goods in return for handling legal affairs, and holding consultation with the lien holder in relation to the exercise of lien, etc." and Article 2 (3) of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below is that "Defendant A had an AI, etc. occupy the above hospital through a performance angle with B on February 2013 and had the AI, etc. occupy the above hospital and properly exercise the right of retention on that hospital, exercising the right of retention on that part by submitting a false lien directly to the Jeonju District Court.