Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Around January 4, 2016, the Defendant entered into a debt collection delegation agreement with the effect that, despite being not an attorney-at-law, the Defendant would be paid KRW 5 million and the amount collected at KRW 30% of the retainers by going through compulsory execution procedures against the obligor E, etc. at the Yansan-si Cbuilding Office in the Jeonsi-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Accordingly, the Defendant deposited KRW 5 million from the above D on the same day to the passbook in the name of the Defendant’s wife, sent a notice of assignment of claims and a certificate of contents to E, etc. who is the debtor of D, and handled legal affairs by preparing and receiving documents necessary for compulsory execution procedures for corporeal movables seizure against E, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes to claims collection delegation contracts, claims transfer and takeover contracts, notifications on the assignment of claims, details of estimated expenditure, details of expenditure, and copies of collection;

1. Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law Act applicable to facts constituting an offense and subparagraph 1 of Article 109 of the Act on the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Although the fact that the defendant's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel concluded a debt collection delegation contract with D and commenced compulsory execution procedures such as seizure of corporeal movables to E is acknowledged, the defendant's act does not constitute legal affairs under Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and it does not constitute a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act since it does not constitute legitimate act permitted under "the

2. Article 109(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides for penalties for acts of legal service in relation to litigation cases, etc., and the above provision is an appraisal, representation, arbitration, reconciliation, solicitation, as a type of legal service prohibited.