[변호사법위반][집31(2)형,54;공1983.6.1.(705),845]
Appropriateness of collection in the event of a change of damage or revocation of a complaint;
Even in cases where an offender consumes money or goods received from a victim and returned money or goods equivalent thereto, or cancels a complaint for mutual agreement, such money or goods shall be additionally collected from the offender.
Articles 78, 82, and 48 of the Attorney-at-Law Act
Supreme Court Decision 79Do1189 Decided July 10, 1979
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Shin Shin-chul
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No3614 delivered on March 5, 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the trial evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, even though the facts of the judgment against the defendant were recognized and there was no error in the misunderstanding of facts or the misunderstanding of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit, and even if the defendant consumeds the money received from the victim and returned the money and valuables corresponding to them, or cancelled the complaint for mutual agreement, it is necessary to collect them from the criminal (see Supreme Court Decision 79Do189 delivered on July 10, 1979). Thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to additional collection charges such as the paper of lawsuit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)