변호사법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. If the part of the actual cost is excluded from the money that the defendant obtained by mistake of facts (10% of the amount of claim), the profit that the defendant acquired is merely one percent of the amount of claim.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act as to the total amount of 10% of the amount of claims is erroneous and adversely affected by
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, three years of probation, community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In the lower court’s determination of a mistake of fact, the Defendant alleged that “the money and valuables promised to accept 10% of the amount of the claim, but the remainder excluding the expenses, which may include the money and valuables in the nature of compensating for actual expenses, such as stamp, may also be included.” As long as the lower court did not clearly distinguish between “money and valuables in the name of compensating for actual expenses” and “the portion of economic benefits exceeding them” at the time of the promise, it is reasonable to view that the nature of “compensation for legal affairs of non-legal attorneys” and “compensation for actual expenses” are indivisiblely combined with the amount promised to receive and receive. As such, the entire amount agreed to receive and receive ought to be deemed to have the nature of dealing with legal affairs of non-legal attorneys.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3044 Decided April 10, 2008, see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3044).
The Defendant alleged to the effect that 9% of the amount of the claim was divided into actual expenses as 9%, and 1% of the amount of the claim as fee. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit, and the lower judgment is justifiable.
1. The defendant shall certify payment orders and contents to creditors through his/her office staff.