Whether there are grounds for not asserting on the date of deliberation by the Attorney Disciplinary Committee and grounds for objection against the decision of disciplinary action (negative)

On the date of the deliberation of disciplinary action by the Attorney Disciplinary Committee, if the party did not assert the reason that the document was false or false, which was caused by coercion, the ground for re-appeal against the decision of disciplinary action cannot be considered as the ground for re-appeal for such reason.

Article 22 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 412 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Attorney Disciplinary Committee

original Attorney Disciplinary Committee on January 23, 1981

The reappeal is dismissed.

As to ground of re-appeal No. 1

According to the records of this case, the facts of the charge of disciplinary action against the re-appellant can be acknowledged, and according to the facts of this case, the original disposition can be pride. The re-appellant is guilty of violating the rules of evidence and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the voluntariness of the self-statement. However, according to the records of the deliberation of disciplinary action of this case, the re-appellant cannot find any trace of such argument on the date of the deliberation of disciplinary action of the original disciplinary committee, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for re-appeal. Thus, this is without merit.

With respect to Section 2:

In accordance with the records of this case, the re-appellant appeared at the date of deliberation of the original disciplinary committee and denied part of the facts of disciplinary action, and the re-appellant requested to investigate and request the whole facts of the facts of the suspicion at the seat of the disciplinary committee, which is an unfair infringement of the right to submit evidence and received a written decision immediately before the deliberation of the commencement of disciplinary action. This is a violation of Articles 266 and 269 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning service of written decision of the commencement of disciplinary action. However, according to the written decision of the disciplinary action of this case, the re-appellant cannot find any traces of such arguments on the date of deliberation of the original disciplinary committee, and it is based on the re-appeal only after the trial of this case. Therefore, this cannot be a legitimate ground for re-appeal.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)