Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (in case of Defendant D, 2 years of suspended execution, additional collection 27.2 million won in the imprisonment of six months, 2 years of suspended execution, additional collection 24.4 million won in the imprisonment of six months, and Defendant F: 3 years of suspended execution, additional collection 33 million won in the imprisonment of ten months) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment of Defendant D does not have the criminal records exceeding the same kind of crime and fine; Defendant E does not have the record of punishment for the same crime; Defendant F does not have the record of punishment for the same crime; Defendant F is a first offender who has no record of criminal records. However, each of the crimes of this case is deemed to be less than that of the defendants who are not attorneys-at-law and are paid fees by proxy for an auction business in a systematic and planned manner, and in light of the method, period, and amount received, etc. of the crime, the quality of the crime is not weak; the defendants are higher than that of the defendants' mistake; most of the amount received is not returned; the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act of this case does not infringe the foundation of the bar system requiring strict qualifications for the execution of fair and lawful legal affairs; the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act of this case is strictly punished; the equity of punishment with accomplices; and the motive and circumstances leading up to each of the crimes of this case; and the defendant's age, character, and behavior, etc.
(3) The defendant's assertion that part of the fees received from the customers should be deducted from the amount of additional collection because they were paid as actual expenses in the course of conducting the auction business. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, so this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit).