When Defendant 4 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 4 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 40,000 into one day.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment, 177 days for Defendant 1, 104 days for Defendant 2, and 3 shall be included in the above punishment.

However, with respect to the defendant 3, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order Defendant 3 to provide community service for 160 hours.

1,50,000 won shall be collected from Defendant 2, and 7,000,000 won shall be collected from Defendant 3 respectively.

The defendant 4 is not guilty of opening and operating an attorney-at-law employment law office by a person who is not a lawyer.

Defendant 5 is not guilty.

On January 21, 2003, the defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul District Court and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

1. Defendant 1, Defendant 2

Although a person, other than an attorney-at-law, is prohibited from establishing and operating a law office by employing a lawyer, the Defendants conspired to employ an attorney-at-law and employ an attorney-at-law, counsel with clients, and prepare various legal documents. Defendant 2 is responsible for managing the funds of the law office to be established at the same time, and Defendant 2 is responsible for managing the funds of the law office to be established. Defendant 2 is prepared to establish a law office by leasing approximately KRW 50,000,000 to KRW 20,000,000,000,000 to KRW 30,000,000,000,000 to KRW 30,000,000,000,000 to KRW 30,000,000,000 to KRW 5,000,000,000,000 to KRW 4,00,000,000.

2. Defendant 2:

A person, in relation to the acceptance of legal cases or legal affairs, has introduced, arranged, or induced a party or other interested persons to a specific attorney-at-law or his office staff, and has not received or demanded money, entertainment, or other benefits as a consideration therefor, even though he did not receive or demand it, on June 12, 2002, after arranging the so-called 'company adviser contract' between the representative director of the above company and the defendant 4 attorney-at-law to conclude the so-called 'company adviser contract' with the legal advice of the above company in this name at the Madnet office located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul around June 12, 2002, after receiving 1.5 million won from the defendant 4 as a broker fee,

3. Defendant 4:

An attorney-at-law or his office staff shall not offer or promise to offer money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits in return for the introduction, good offices or inducement with respect to the acceptance of legal cases or legal affairs, such as paragraph 2 of the above Article, after receiving a commission fee of KRW 3 million from Defendant 2, and after providing Defendant 2 with money and valuables in relation to the acceptance of legal affairs as a commission fee of KRW 1.5 million;

4. Defendant 3:

In the case of the auction on the land of 255 in the city of Gwangju, which is located in the Sung-gu branch of Sung-gu District Court on March 26, 2001, even though an attorney who is not an attorney-at-law is not an attorney-at-law and was not an attorney-at-law to receive money and valuables in return for the auction case, the bidding price of the above auction real estate shall be determined and various documents shall be prepared on behalf of the bidding act on behalf of the bidding act on behalf of the bidding act, such as holding the bid price of the above auction real estate at the request of Park Jong-gu, the bid applicant who is not equipped with the experience and legal knowledge of the bidding and preparing the bid price of the above auction real estate at the above office on the same day, regardless of the fact that he was not an attorney-at-law and received money and valuables in return, the auction procedure on behalf of the unaccompanied-do branch of Sung-gu District Court on March 26, 2001, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements made by Defendants 1, 2, and 4 in the first trial records;

1. Statements made by witnesses 1, 2, and 3 in the second trial records;

1. The statement of the witness Kim beneficiary in the fifth trial records;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant 1, 2, or 4;

1. Three-party statement made by the prosecution;

1. Criminal records of Defendant 1;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant law on facts of crime: Article 109 subparag. 2, Article 34(4) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment and operation of a law office employing attorney-at-law, the choice of imprisonment), Article 109 subparag. 2, Article 34(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the fact of receiving money and valuables after mediation by the defendant 2), Article 109 subparag. 2, Article 34(2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the fact of offering money and valuables by the defendant 4, the selection of fines), Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the fact of receiving money and valuables by the defendant 3, the selection of fines by the defendant 4), Article

1. Handling concurrent crimes: latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant 1);

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Defendant 2 and 3) of the Criminal Act;

1. Attraction of a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (Defendant 4);

1. Calculation of days of pre-trial detention: Article 57 (Defendant 1, 2, and 3) of each Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the defendant 3 repents the error, etc.);

1. Community service order: Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 59 (Defendant 3) of the Probation, etc. Act;

1. Collection: Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (with respect to Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, fees of KRW 5,00,000,00 in the attached Table 3 of Crimes List against Defendant 3 are deemed to have been returned to the leleology on March 16, 200, and thus, it shall be deducted from the amount of collection); and

1. Reasons for sentencing: The crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the establishment and operation of an attorney-at-law employment law office by a person who is not an attorney-at-law committed by Defendant 1 and 2 is deemed to be most bad among the crimes of violation of the Attorney-at-law Act, and the above Defendants are sentenced to punishment in a sense that the crime is not committed thereafter. Defendant 4 is a primary offender; Defendant 4 is a person who has been employed by a person who is not an attorney-at-law, but is in profoundly contrary to the nature of the crime of this case; the amount of the crime of this case is not significant; when a defendant is sentenced to imprisonment, he is sentenced to a fine in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the disadvantage of his status he suffers when he is sentenced to imprisonment. Defendant 3 is an act of acting as an agent for the auction of this case,

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged as to the establishment and operation of a law office employing attorneys by those who are not attorneys-at-law against Defendant 4 and 5

Defendant 4 and 5, despite the fact that a person who is not an attorney-at-law is prohibited from opening and operating a law office by employing an attorney-at-law, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 2, Defendant 1 is responsible for employing attorneys-at-law and providing counseling to clients and preparing various legal documents. Defendant 2 is responsible for managing the funds of the law office to be established at the same time. Defendant 2 is responsible for managing the funds of the law office to rent the office and establish the law office in Songpa-gu Seoul. Defendant 2 was prepared to establish a law office by leasing approximately KRW 50,00,000 to KRW 20,000,000,000 in the building located in Songpa-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul. Defendant 1 was interviewed with several persons who will complete 30 years of the Judicial Research and Training Institute to employ attorneys-at-law. Defendant 5 was appointed as non-party 5, and Defendant 2 was registered with the law office in Seoul and registered with the law office in 200,000.

2. Judgment on Defendant 4

Article 34 (4) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "no person who is not an attorney-at-law shall establish and operate a law office by employing an attorney-at-law," and Article 109 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "no person who violates the provisions of Article 34 of the Attorney-at-Law Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, or both."

However, according to the above facts charged against Defendant 4, since Defendant 1 and 2 established and operated a law office by employing Defendant 4, Defendant 1 and 2 can only punish Defendant 1 and 2 pursuant to the above provisions, and Defendant 4, who is employed, cannot be punished.

The prosecutor asserts that Defendant 4 constituted a co-principal with respect to the crime of violating the above provision by Defendant 1 and 2. However, according to the evidence as seen above, Defendant 4 is merely a fact employed by the above Defendants and did work at the above office, and there is no evidence to deem that Defendant 4 conspiredd to commit the crime of violating the above provision or shared any act by Defendant 4. In other words, if Defendant 4 took part in the crime of violating the above provision, such as renting the office to be used for the above Defendants or printing the attorney-at-law who will employ, he shall be deemed to constitute a co-principal of the above Defendants, but if there is no evidence to acknowledge such fact and if it falls under the co-principal as above, it shall not be deemed that Defendant 4 was employed by the above Defendants as a person who is not an attorney-at-law, but shall be deemed to have a co-principal relationship with the above Defendants.

In addition, if an attorney employed by a person who is not an attorney-at-law is punished as a co-principal for a violation of the above provision, he/she is against the provision of Article 34 (4) of the Attorney-at-law Act stipulating that a person who employs an attorney-at-law and an attorney who is not an attorney-at-law is punished at all times.

In the case of an act premised on the other party as stipulated in Article 34(4) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, there is no application of the general provisions of the Criminal Act concerning accomplices or aiding and abettings, and unless there is a separate provision punishing the other party's act, the other party may not be punished as an accomplices or aiding and abettings (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5158, Dec. 28, 2001).

Therefore, the facts charged against Defendant 4 constitute a crime or a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the court acquitted Defendant 4 pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(1) Article 34(4) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that “A person who is not an attorney-at-law shall not establish and operate a law office by employing an attorney-at-law” and “a person who is not an attorney-at-law shall not establish and operate a law office.” Article 30(2) of the Medical Service Act prohibits a person who is not a doctor or a doctor from establishing a medical institution. In addition, Article 66 subparag. 3 of the Medical Service Act merely prohibits a person who is not a doctor from establishing a medical institution without a doctor-at-law’s consent.” Article 66(2) of the same Act provides that “A person who is not an attorney-at-law shall not be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won.” Article 69 of the Medical Service Act provides that a person who is not an attorney-at-law shall not be punished by a fine not exceeding 30,000,000 won who is employed by a prosecutor-at-law.”

3. Judgment on Defendant 5

Defendant 5 asserts that Defendant 5 was employed by Defendant 2 and did not establish and operate a law office by employing Defendant 4 in collusion with Defendant 1 and 2.

According to the above evidence and the statement made by Defendant 5 in the first trial record, Defendant 5 was employed on condition that Defendant 2 received incentives based on his basic level of KRW 800,000,000 from the time of the establishment of the law office at the time of the establishment of the above (mutual omission) office. Defendant 5 was an employee who was engaged in miscellaneous work, such as interior work for opening the office, or who was an operator of the law office (mutual omission). There is no evidence to deem that Defendant 5 had established and operated the law office by hiring Defendant 4 in collusion with Defendant 1 and 2.

Therefore, the defendant 5 is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Separate] : omitted of a list of crimes;

final number of judges