All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to Defendant A) declared a judgment dismissing the reasoning for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act from October 1, 2007 to April 1, 2009, on the ground that the res judicata of the summary order issued on April 1, 2009 against Defendant A, as an inclusive crime, extends to the crime prior to the issuance of the above summary order.

However, considering ① the necessity of strict delegations for crimes committed in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the unique characteristics of legal affairs that cannot be seen the same as the act of business, it is reasonable to rate them as substantive concurrent crimes.

Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the fact that it belongs to a single comprehensive crime, and ② even if it is considered a single comprehensive crime for household affairs, there are circumstances that the criminal intent has been renewed at the time, such as the transfer of office to July 1, 2008, etc., and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principle or the misapprehension of legal principle as to the judgment that the court below erred in finding that the res judicata effect has been affected.

B. Defendants 1) The subject of responsibility and calculation concerning the operation of the legal office of this case of erroneous determination of facts is Defendant B, who is an attorney-at-law. Defendant A, as the chief of the legal office of this case, only dealt with legal affairs under the direction and supervision of Defendant B, and does not constitute a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. 2) Even if he was guilty of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of one and half years, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and six months, one year of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, and 280 hours of community

2. Determination

A. Basic facts 1) Defendant B uses it as an election office in preparation for the election of National Assembly members around June 2004, and provides legal counseling to local voters.