According to the facts established by the judgment of the court below, the defendant sold a building that he had newly built to the non-indicted 1, and then sold it to the non-indicted 1, and then changed the name of the owner of the building to the non-indicted 1's wife, the non-indicted 1's wife and the non-indicted 3's wife. Thus, the defendant was paid KRW 200,00 from the non-indicted 1 at the time and time of the indictment. If the above facts are true, the above procedure for change of the owner's name is the defendant's own business for the non-indicted 1. Thus, the above act of receiving money and valuables by the defendant does not fall under Article 54 of the Attorney-at-law Act on the premise that it is another person's case or business. However, although the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the remaining grounds for appeal pointing this out are reversed.

Therefore, since the appeal on this case is well-grounded, it is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division which is the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)

The judge of the Supreme Court is unable to sign due to overseas business trip of the Korean Supreme Court. Kim Hong