[2] In a case where a request for solicitation or mediation was made upon acceptance of such request, and there was an act of promising to receive benefits or receiving benefits in connection with it later or later after acceptance of such request, whether it constitutes "the pretext of solicitation or mediation" under Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (affirmative)

[3] The meaning of "interest" under Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[2] The meaning of Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act "a name of solicitation or good offices is for solicitation or good offices," and ultimately, it is not different from the purport of "competing solicitation or good offices," and as such, a request for solicitation or good offices is made by a request for solicitation or good offices, and as long as the relation or quid pro quo between an act of accepting such request and an act of receiving or promising such benefit is recognized, it shall not be deemed that there was an act of promising or receiving benefit in connection with it last after the acceptance of the request, and it shall not be deemed that there was an act of promising or receiving benefit in return.

[3] The meaning of "interest" under Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is to be interpreted as including not only money, goods, and other property interests, as well as all tangible and intangible interests sufficient to satisfy human demand and desire, as well as to obtain an opportunity to invest in the business which participates in the speculative business or is able to obtain a certain profit.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2.

In light of the records, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its adopted evidence, and, based on various grounds as stated in its reasoning, found the defendant and the non-indicted 1 agreed to transfer and take over two advertisements using the electricity from the first business operator of the Daegu Summer River World in Daegu in May 2001 on the request of the high-ranking public officials of the Ministry of the Interior and Home Affairs and accepted them as stated in its reasoning with respect to the distribution of new quantities of 25 advertisements using the electricity to the 25th in the Daegu Summer River in May 2001, and around July 2001, the defendant decided to transfer and take over two advertisements using the electricity in the first business from the non-indicted 1 under the name of the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted 200 million won under the name of the non-indicted 1 as stated in its reasoning, and it was just to have determined that there was no error in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence or 200 million won as to the investment profits of the defendant.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 4, and 5.

A. The phrase "cases or affairs dealt with by public officials" under Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act shall be interpreted to refer to all cases or affairs of a person other than himself/herself (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do2422 delivered on July 22, 1997, etc.).

However, in light of the relationship between the defendant and the non-indicted 1 on the request of the court below regarding the allocation of new quantity of the advertisements used in electricity between the 25th period and the non-indicted 1, the agreement to transfer and take over the advertisements used in electricity related thereto, and the defendant's investment relation to the non-indicted 2 Co. 2 Co., Ltd., this relationship is established and a substantial partnership between the defendant and the non-indicted 1 is established, and it cannot be deemed that such relationship is based on or as part of such a contract. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant made a solicitation to senior public officials of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs in relation to the allocation of new quantity of the advertisements used in electricity between the defendant and the non-indicted 1. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's business is a joint business of the defendant and the non-indicted 1 with regard to the investment itself after the provision of the investment opportunity.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's solicitation of senior public officials of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs in relation to the distribution of new quantity of advertisements 25th art. 25th art. The defendant and the non-indicted 1 at the time are responsible for the defendant's new allocation of the above 25th art. The defendant's true contents of the agreement between the defendant and the non-indicted 1 at the time are responsible for the defendant's new allocation of the above 25 art. The defendant's new allocation of the above advertising materials, the above advertising term was 1st term of the above advertising place, and the non-indicted 1 agreed to operate the business along with the above existing advertising place by providing the above advertising place, on the premise that the defendant's promise or merely received the profits of his own business, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the court below erred in the misapprehension

B. Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "any name in which solicitation or good offices are made" means "any name in which solicitation or good offices are made," and ultimately, it is not different from the purport of "competence or good offices". Therefore, in case where the relationship or quid pro quo between the act of accepting the solicitation or good offices and the act of receiving or promising to receive the benefit thereof is acknowledged, as in the case of this case, the request for solicitation or good offices shall be made, and it shall not be deemed that the act of accepting it was made later, and it shall not be deemed that there was an act of promising, promising, or receiving the benefit in connection with it.

In the same purport, the court below's decision is just in finding that the defendant promised to give and receive two electric advertisements owned by the non-indicted 3 corporation from the non-indicted 1 for the purpose of solicitation as stated in its holding, and that the defendant received or promised to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits under the pretext of solicitation or good offices, and it does not stipulate that Article 111 of the Attorney-at-law Act is "any person who receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits", and therefore, it does not state that "to make solicitation or good offices". Thus, the court below's interpretation faithfully in its literal meaning and faithfully makes it difficult before and after the request, but on the premise that only "the person who received or promised to receive money, valuables or other benefits in advance prior to solicitation or good offices before solicitation or good offices" falls under the subject of punishment, it is not acceptable to accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there was

C. The meaning of “interest” under Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is to be interpreted as including not only money, goods, and other property interests, but also all tangible and intangible interests sufficient to satisfy human demand and desire, as well as to obtain an opportunity to invest in the business where a person participates in an speculative business or may obtain certain profits.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant invested 30 million won in the non-indicted 2 corporation that the non-indicted 1 wants to establish under the same name as the above in March 2002 and received an expected investment opportunity by being allocated 20% of the company's shares and received an expected investment opportunity, and that he received an interest under Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)