The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to determine whether an attorney-at-law has committed a violation under Article 109 subparag. 2 of the Defense Act by allowing the staff of a legal office established in his/her name to use his/her name. In order to determine whether an attorney-at-law has committed a violation under Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Defense Justice Act by performing legal affairs under the name of the attorney-at-law, the court below should consider the following: (a) the overall process of the first acceptance of a legal case to the final handling process; (b) the type and content of the legal case; (c) the level of legal knowledge necessary for the nature and handling of legal affairs; (d) the frequency and frequency of the attorneys-at-law’ involvement in the performance of affairs, such as legal counseling or preparation of legal documents; (e) the process and method of opening the office; (b) the method of employing and managing the staff; (c) the principal agent’s personal relationship between the attorneys-at-law and the staff; and (d) the amount paid in return for using the name; and (d) whether the Defendant’s legal affairs can be deemed to be recognized under the name and circumstances.

Even if this cannot be seen as an employer’s direction and supervision, each of the facts charged of this case was found guilty.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to logical and empirical rules, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.