변호사법위반
All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.
1. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
(b).
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles or Defendant B’s act of having Defendant A pay 30% of the successful remuneration in the apartment repair case does not constitute a promise to introduce, arrange, or induce legal cases prohibited under Article 34(1) of the Defense Act.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, fine of 7.2 million won and additional collection; Defendant B’s imprisonment of two years, a stay of execution of two years, a fine of 20 million won in June) is too heavy.
B. The Nos. 1 through 5 of the List of Offenses A (2) does not constitute money received in return for the conciliation of the instant case.
(c)
Each sentence of the prosecutor's court below is too minor.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, mediated Defendant A to the Defendant B with respect to the acceptance of legal cases or legal affairs.
The decision was determined.
In the lower judgment, the Defendants alleged that the Defendants’ act was not an act of arranging the Defendants’ act prohibited under Article 34(1) of the Defense Justice Act, and the lower court determined that the Defendants’ act was an act of arranging the Defendants’ act of denying the Defendants’ assertion and constitutes an act of arranging the said act as prohibited under Article 34(1) of the Defense Counsel Act.
Article 34(1) of the Defense Act refers to the act of mediating or facilitating the conclusion of delegation agreements, etc. concerning legal cases or legal affairs between the parties to a legal case and the other party who deals with legal affairs, such as representation, in connection with the case (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3697 delivered on June 16, 200). Even when examining the records of trial and the records of trial in the defect lawsuit, which are reference materials submitted by Defendant B, are examined in the first instance trial, the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the reasons for the judgment below are closely comparison.