beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.07.14 2015노1738

변호사법위반

Text

The judgment below

The part of the crime No. 2-A of the judgment is reversed.

Defendant

B Part 2-A of the judgment of the court below.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts by Defendant A is merely an employee of an attorney-at-law’s office operated by Defendant B, and there was no fact that Defendant B used his name.

The judgment of the court below that found Defendant A guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. As to the crime of 2-B of the judgment of the court below claiming the misunderstanding of Defendant B’s facts, Defendant B paid 100 million won to Defendant A on behalf of Defendant A, and also lent 40 million won to Defendant A, the prosecutor did not report false facts to the prosecutor.

The judgment of the court below that found Defendant B guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

(c)

The defendants asserts that the defendants' respective types of punishment [the 2 years of suspended sentence in October, the 2 years of suspended sentence (the 2-A) in October, the 2-year suspended sentence (the 2-B) in the 10-year imprisonment, the 2-year suspended sentence (the 2-B of the decision) in the 10-month imprisonment] of the judgment of the court below that the defendants' and the prosecutor's unfair argument for sentencing are too vague, and the prosecutors are too unfasible and unfair.

2. The judgment of the court below on the part of the crime No. 2-A of the judgment below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and in this respect, the part of the crime No. 2-A of the judgment of the court below as a single crime, since each crime of violation of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Defense Act committed committed committed by a person who is not an attorney-at-law by dealing with legal affairs concerning each of the other legal cases with different contents from the parties, is in the relation of concurrent crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do14198, Jan. 15, 2015).

3. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. Legal doctrine is established in its own name.