변호사법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or mistake of facts, although the defendant did not commit the crime of violation of the legal principles under each defense of 1,2,10,11, and 12 among the crime list 2 attached to the judgment of the court below in collusion with H, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the lower court’s argument of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, who is not an attorney-at-law, conducted legal affairs by preparing a complaint of the administrative litigation case seeking the revocation of refugee non-determination, in collusion with H, as stated in the attached Table 2 of the List of Crimes Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, and 12 in collusion with the applicant for refugee status in return for money and valuables from the applicant for refugee status, thereby committing a crime of violation of each defense judicial provision in this part.
① The Defendant received compensation on a condition that he/she will act on behalf of the refugee applicants from the refugee applicant to the administrative litigation proceeding seeking the revocation of the decision of non-resident status, and then sent the file of the administrative litigation case to H to the Jeju District Court so that H residing in Jeju may prepare a complaint of the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the decision of non-resident status against the refugee applicants and submit it to the Jeju District Court, and wired money in the name of litigation costs.
② Using the aforementioned format files and money received from the Defendant, H prepared a complaint of the administrative litigation case seeking the cancellation of refugee non-determination against the refugee applicants, as described in Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, and 12 of the List of Crimes Nos. 2 in the judgment of the lower court, and submitted it to the Jeju District Court.
Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
3. The defendant's objection to the unfair argument of sentencing.