The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) According to Article 249(1)4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), the statute of limitations for Defendant C’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), the prosecution of this case was instituted on October 1, 201. From April 29, 2005 to September 30, 2007, the prosecution of this case had already been completed for five years from April 29, 2005 to October 10, 2006, the statute of limitations has already expired, and thus, a judgment of acquittal should be pronounced.) or misunderstanding of the legal principles (hereinafter referred to as Defendant C and B’s borrowing of the name of Defendant C and the attorney-at-law, and led and supervised the above Defendants to perform their duties by being employed by the said Defendants.

3) Defendant A’s prosecutor’s statement to the effect that the testimony made by the public prosecutor constitutes a prosecutor’s meeting or pressure without knowing the legal meaning of the name lending, and thus inadmissible as it is inadmissible. (B) The sentencing of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: 1 year of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 2 years of fine: Defendant B, and 15 million won of fine) is too uneasible and unfair. (2) The summary of the facts charged is an attorney-at-law who has operated “Law Office B” and Defendant C operated “Law Office C” (from May 2006 to August 207, 200). Defendant A (Defendant A1) registered Defendant B as an attorney-at-law’s office in the name of Defendant B or in the form of B and in the form of a law office, regardless of the qualification of the attorney-at-law’s license to perform registration affairs under its own name, and Defendant C is an attorney-at-law who has operated the fixed amount of office in the name of the attorney-at-law.