[변호사법위반][집31(6)형,40;공1984.1.1.(719) 66]
In the case of a concurrent or multiple-choice type, the method of comparing the seriousness of statutory penalty;
Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 1982. 31, Dec. 31, 1982), which is a corporation at the time of action, has three years of imprisonment, and the punishment provided for in Article 78 of the current Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 1982. 31, Dec. 31, 1982), is imprisonment for not more than five years, or a fine not exceeding 10 million won, and even if it is possible to choose a fine in a new law, the severity of
Articles 1 and 50 of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Defendant
Busan District Court Decision 83No756 delivered on August 16, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.
Examining the evidence of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below in accordance with the records, it is not reasonable that the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's confession statement among the prosecutor's suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant lacks voluntariness and accepted the measures that recognized the admissibility of evidence. Thus, it is not reasonable to see the court below's incomplete deliberation and misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence and the admissibility of evidence and the abuse of the right to command the lawsuit.
In addition, since the punishment provided in Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 1982, Dec. 31, 1982) which was enforced at the time of the act is imprisonment for not more than three years and the punishment provided in Article 78 of the current Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 1982, Dec. 31, 1982) is imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 10 million won, the new law which can choose a fine is more minor than the former law and the new law is applied despite the application of the former law, the judgment of the court below applying the former law has misunderstanding the legal principles provided in the latter part of Article 1(2) and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. However, in comparison with the severity of the statutory punishment, the judgment of the court below is justified in applying the latter part of Article 1(2) and Article 78 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 54 of the former Attorney-at-law).
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)