All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Defendant B and C are not a joint principal offender for a crime of violating the defensive Justice, but rather a aiding and abetting offense. 2) Defendant L (misunderstanding of the facts as to the surcharge charge) recognized the loan cost of KRW 43,50,000 in cash received from Defendant A (misunderstanding of the fact as to the surcharge charge charge) but the remaining additional tax and income tax amount of KRW 18,00,000 as well as the amount of national pension and health insurance premium paid in excess of KRW 28,00,000.

B. The following punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable as to the lower court’s unfair sentencing.

1) Defendant A: Imprisonment for three years, additional collection of KRW 6,601,07,600 (2) and KRW 487,576,371) and Defendant C: imprisonment for one year and two months, additional collection of KRW 487,576,371: KRW 3: 1 year, additional collection of KRW 365,000: Defendant M andN in six months: 1 year, additional collection of KRW 89,500,000 in prison; fine of KRW 30 million, additional collection of KRW 45,00,000.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of the legal principles and mistake of Defendant B, C, and L

A. Determination as to Defendant B and C’s assertion 1) The essence of the joint principal offender is functional control by division of occupational roles, so the joint principal offender is in a functional control by a joint principal offender, while the joint principal offender is in the absence of control by a joint principal offender (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do1247, Apr. 11, 1989). 2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view Defendant B and C as not a mere aiding and abetting offense against Defendant A’s violation of the Act, but a joint principal offender.

Therefore, Defendant B and C’s above assertion is without merit.

① Defendant A, the principal offender of the instant case, is in charge of operating A Q law office, and is in charge of affairs related to the issuance of a personal rehabilitation and other documents, debt teams in charge of affairs related to the issuance of debt certificates, advertising teams in charge of advertising affairs, office affairs, and management teams in charge of affairs related to the collection of royalties claims.