The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Each legal case stated in the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, was actually carried out by the Defendant, and C does not actually deal with C’s responsibilities and accounts without being subject to the direction and supervision

The punishment of the lower court (five million won in penalty) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

An attorney-at-law may not allow a person, other than an attorney-at-law, to use his/her name (Article 34(3) and Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Act). An attorney-at-law refers to an attorney-at-law who has established a law office under his/her name (hereinafter referred to as “non-legal attorney-at-law”).

In order to determine whether a person committed a violation under Article 109 subparag. 2 of the Defense Act by allowing the person to use his/her name, thereby committing a violation under Article 109 subparag. 2 of the Act. In order to determine whether such person committed a violation under Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Act by handling legal affairs using the name of the attorney-at-law, the court below’s determination should be based on the following circumstances: (a) the overall process from the first case of a legal case to the final process; (b) the type and content of the legal case; (c) the nature of legal affairs and the level of legal knowledge necessary for legal consultation or preparation of legal documents; (d) the details, methods, and frequency of the attorney-at-law’s involvement in the process of establishing the office; (e) the process of establishing the office; and (e) the method of operating the office; (e) the subject and method of employing the staff and managing the income of the office; and (e) the amount paid in return for using the office name and the attorney-at-law.