The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The statement of D, consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, is not reliable, and the Defendant received KRW 1 million from D as a repayment of the Defendant’s expenses or loans to the Defendant, and it does not receive the above money under the pretext of legal consultation and preparation of legal documents.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act is erroneous or erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (a fine of one million won, an additional collection of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the spirit of the substantial direct examination principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act to determine the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the appellate court shall respect the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance unless there are exceptional circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994 Decided November 24, 2006, etc.). After directly examining D’s testimony, the lower court acknowledged the credibility of D’s statement on the grounds that: (a) after examining the credibility of the testimony, the Defendant requested the case; (b) the background leading up to the delivery of the money to the Defendant; and (c) the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s demand for return of money thereafter, the Defendant’s explanation is reasonable and acceptable; and (d) found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

Examining the judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, there is no special circumstance to deem that the first instance court's judgment on the credibility of D's testimony was clearly erroneous. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles.