The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) The portion related to D’s acceptance under a contract with the lending company [excluding the sequence 255, 259, 267, 267, 268, 288, 289, 289, 294, 304, 309, 312 of the judgment below] Defendant made D use of name only under the condition that “the clients receive a loan from the lending company.”

Nevertheless, when D used the name of the defendant without the permission of the defendant, the defendant lent the name of the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) Since the list Nos. 267 and 268 of the crime sight table 267 and 268 of the court below related to the double indictment part are written in duplicate, one must be deleted. The prosecutor requested correction of the indictment to delete 268 of the crime sight table 268 of the court below in the first instance trial, and to revise the total amount to “615,690,630 won,” and this court permitted this.

Therefore, the illegality of the defendant's assertion in relation to the same part is cured, and the defendant's argument is not judged.

3) Regarding D’s personal monetary transaction (the list Nos. 249 of the crime committed in the lower court) Nos. 249 of the list of crimes committed in the lower court is due to D’s personal monetary transaction unrelated to legal affairs.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (an additional collection of KRW 2,50,000,000,000,000), is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion related to the portion that D accepted under a contract with the lending company is final in the first acceptance of the legal case dealt with in order to determine whether a lawyer committed a violation under Article 109 subparag. 2 of the Defense Act by allowing the legal office staff established under his/her name to use his/her name, and whether the office staff engaged in a violation under Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Defense Act by performing legal affairs using the attorney’s name.