(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.09.12 2017고정736

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.09.12 2017고정736

변호사법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No attorney-at-law shall allow any person who intends to handle legal affairs without qualification as an attorney-at-law to use his/her name.

Nevertheless, around April 2010, the Defendant, an attorney-at-law, had C and D, who is not an attorney-at-law, handle personal rehabilitation law affairs in the name of the Defendant, using the name of the attorney-at-law in Seocho-gu Seoul, and receive 1,000,000 won from the clients of personal rehabilitation cases, using the name of the Defendant’s attorney-at-law. From that time to October 201, the Defendant, as shown in attached Table 1, up to October 201, he had C and D handle the case of personal rehabilitation, bankruptcy, and 85 times in total by using the name of the Defendant’s attorney-at-law, and received 38,00,000,000 won in return for the loan from the name of the said C and D (2,00,000 won in the name of the Defendant).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect C to the prosecution;

1. Article 109 of the Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 109 subparagraph 2 and 34 (3) of the Act ( comprehensively referred to as an attorney-at-law in charge) and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The latter part of Article 116 of the Additional Collection Attorney Act: Provided, That since the defendant did not directly receive KRW 2 million each month from C or D, the above amount is not subject to additional collection.

The argument is asserted.

However, the Defendant had C and D borrow the name of the Defendant in a separate space and accepted the case of personal rehabilitation, bankruptcy, and liability. Although C and D paid rent for a separate space, as alleged by the Defendant, C and D directly paid it to the lessor.

Even if the parties to a lease contract were the parties to the contract and the defendant were the parties to the contract, and the defendant would be merely to allow C and D to pay rent directly to the lessor without going through the defendant (if the rent is in arrears, it is clear that the defendant had the legal responsibility to pay rent).

참조조문

-형법 제69조 제2항

-형법 제70조 제1항

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.01.13 2015고단6894

-인천지방법원 2016.01.28 2015고단6629

-인천지방법원 2016.04.20 2015고단6798 (1)

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.08.18 2017고정261

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.16 2017고정1459