Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant B, etc.) were employed as normal employees and processed affairs by means of receiving a post-report on the case of personal rehabilitation, etc., and furthermore, the Defendant only lent the name of attorney to B, etc.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. Regarding the first-class sentence for sentencing (15,00,000 won in penalty), the summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant is too unreasonable because the Defendant’s appeal is too unreasonable. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the Prosecutor is that the Prosecutor’s appeal is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. (i) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the clerical staff of the legal office established by an attorney-at-law under his/her name (hereinafter “non-legal staff”).

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. 1 of the Defense Justice Act. In order to determine whether such person committed a violation under Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Defense Justice by handling legal affairs using the name of the attorney-at-law, the following should be examined: (a) the overall process from the first case of a legal case to the final process; (b) the type and content of a legal case; (c) the level of legal knowledge necessary for the character and process of legal affairs; (d) the attorney-at-law’s involvement in legal consultation or preparation of legal documents; and (e) the details, methods, and frequency of the process of opening the office; (e) the subject and method of employing and managing the office’s revenues; (e) the personal relationship between the attorney-at-law and the staff; and (e) the amount paid in return for using the name.

The first instance trial.