Whether the receipt of money by the executive director of a company under the name of dealing with a case suspected of tax evasion by the company is a solicitation concerning another person's case or business

If the executive director of the company received money three times as a request from the public official concerned in the course of settling the case of tax evasion suspicion against the above company, which was investigated by the tax authority as the representative director of the above company by delegation of the representative director of the above company, the above executive director received money from the representative director and requested the relevant public official in return for the request, and the contents of the request are related to the above company in which the executive director was the general director, and the above executive director managed the affairs as the representative director of the above company on behalf of the representative director of the above company in the above case. Thus, the solicitation of the above case cannot be deemed as a solicitation

Subparagraph 1 of Article 78 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do3147 delivered on March 23, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 83Do1656 delivered on November 8, 1983

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Won-sung

Gwangju District Court Decision 85No283 delivered on July 11, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the court below's lawful determination, when the defendant submitted to the Gwangju regional tax office, etc. that he retired as the director of the above company's emergency planning division while assisting the representative director as the executive director of the non-indicted corporation and dealing with the overall business of the company, and the investigation was commenced after the non-indicted 2 was submitted to the above company's general director at the time of the above company's tax evasion, etc., the above company's non-indicted 10,000 won was entrusted by the above representative director, and the defendant was responsible for settling the above case as a result of the agreement between three parties such as the defendant et al. who was a general director of the above company's office, and the defendant was entrusted with the above representative director's authority, and received three times as a total amount of 71,00,000,000 won from the above representative director's disaster protection and received money from the public official concerned. Accordingly, the defendant's request was about the above company's representative director's company, and the defendant was not a representative of the above company's representative director.

In the same purport, the court below is just in making a decision not guilty of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is the primary charge of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in the lawsuit is inappropriate

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

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)