행정사법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not commit the crimes listed in the annexed Table Nos. 2, 4, and 8, a year of the sight of the crimes.
B. Legal doctrine misunderstanding E, G, H, I, J, and F Police Examination Protocol cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt, since all the protocol of interrogation of suspects is inadmissible.
(c)
Sentencing Sentencing
2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, who entered the Republic of Korea as a male with Vietnam’s nationality, for non-professional employment (E-9) on November 17, 2009, and whose period of stay expires around November 16, 2012, filed an application for refugee status with the Office of Daegu Immigration and Immigration around July 26, 2015 and is granted the status of stay (G-1).
Except as otherwise permitted by any other Act, no person, other than a licensed administrative agent, shall engage in business of preparing documents, preparing documents concerning rights and obligations or certifying facts, providing consultation or providing advice to an administrative agency with respect to administrative-related statutes and administration, etc., entrusted by another person.
Although the Defendant is not an administrative agent, on August 2015, applied for refugee status recognition at a Vietnam cafeteria where the trade name on the B or B floor in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 2015 is unknown, and received another visa (G-1).
Upon the request of E, documents submitted to refugee management offices, which are administrative agencies, and documents submitted to refugee management offices, and documents submitted for recognition of refugee status in the name of E.
In addition, even if the Defendant is not an administrative agent more than seven times in total, such as 1-6, and 8 times a year in the list of annexed crimes, the Defendant prepared an application for recognition of refugee status that he/she intends to submit to the refugee status of the immigration management office, which is an administrative agency, and received a total of KRW 8,600,000,000, in terms of fees.
Accordingly, the defendant was not an administrative agent but a business of preparing documents to be submitted to an administrative agency upon delegation by others.
3. Ex officio determination
A. The former Administrative Law of the Republic of Korea (amended by Act No. 13835, Jan. 27, 2016) is amended.