All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (De facto mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, or misunderstanding of legal principles) was a staff member of the “Attorney J-Law Office” and the Defendant received money by concluding a delegation contract for D and E criminal case on behalf of J counsel on behalf of J counsel as part of the full delegation of J counsel, and terminated the delegation contract on behalf of J counsel on the direction of progress of the case.

In addition, each statement of D and E is not reliable in light of the statement circumstances, etc.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be viewed as being engaged independently in legal affairs because he is not an attorney-at-law.

B) The Defendant did not conclude a delegation contract with D and E to directly request the prosecutor’s office staff, etc. in return for non-detained trials, etc., and only gave advice to D and E with general and easy contents, such as “to faithfully undergo an investigation” and “to talk according to facts.” Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have dealt with legal affairs. Therefore, the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 53 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment for one year and two months, additional collection of 53 million won) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The term “other legal affairs” under Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act refers to the treatment of matters that generate, alter, or alter legal effects and preserve or clarify legal effects. The handling of such legal affairs is sufficient if it is related to the handling of matters that generate, alter, preserve, and clarify legal effects, and it is not limited to the acts that directly generate, alter, preserve and clarify legal effects.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4482, Oct. 15, 2009). Also, the legal disputes are substantive and substantive.