변호사법위반
2017No216 Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act
A
Defendant
The truth-finding (prosecution) and the fact-finding (public trial)
Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016 Height1588 Decided February 2, 2017
August 18, 2017
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding person);
The Defendant received KRW 10 million from D is merely a payment for legitimate defense activities, i.e., a fee, not a payment under the pretext of complying with the prosecutor. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it was guilty of the facts charged in this case and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
1) The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court determined that the Defendant received KRW 10 million from D as a bridge with the prosecutor, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.
2) In order to resolve a case requested, Article 110 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is interpreted as having a direct or indirect contact with the pertinent public official in a way that it is difficult to view it as a normal activity as a legal professional of public nature such as entertainment or entertainment as a private relationship or a friendly relationship, etc. In order to view it as a normal activity as a legal professional of public nature. Whether money and valuables received by an attorney-at-law constitutes not a price or remuneration for legitimate defense activities but a teaching system should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) details and amount of money and valuables received; (b) whether the attorney-at-law was submitted; and (c) details of activities and all other relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3255, Nov. 1
3) Examining the circumstances alleged by the lower court in light of the record and the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination
The decision is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
The presiding judge, senior judge, senior secretary
Judges Park Jong-he
Judges Kim Gin-dong