The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles do not lend the name of the co-defendant A to the court below, and as the defendant supervised the process of the rehabilitation case, the co-principal for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act cannot be established, and the preparation of an application, such as the rehabilitation, bankruptcy, and face liability, does not constitute a violation of the defense justice within the scope of a certified judicial scrivener’

B. The sentence of the lower court (the penalty amounting to KRW 30,000,000 and the penalty amount additionally collected to KRW 38,220,000) against the illegal defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, a public offering is not required under the law, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if a combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly and through several persons, there is a public offering relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011). In light of the purport of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the former Judicial Act, which prohibits a non-legal person from participating in the conduct of legal affairs, thereby maintaining a lawyer system, the term “representative” under the above Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Act includes not only a legal representative handling a legal case under the name of his/her agent, but also a combination of intent to use legal knowledge on behalf of him/her, but also a combination of two or more persons to realize a crime. In light of the legal principles as seen above, the court below did not have the same effect as an agent in the case where he/she did not directly act for a principal (see Supreme Court Decision 20067.