logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2019.03.27 2018노612
변호사법위반등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the handling of legal affairs by non-legal attorneys-at-law (1) In light of the fact that all of the acts of the Defendant related to this part are part of the crime of unjust enrichment committed by the Defendant as co-principal, it should be deemed that the Defendant only committed the intentional act or the act of committing the crime of unjust enrichment and did not commit

(2) Of the acts written in this part of the indictment, the Defendant appointed a lawyer with Defendant B and the co-defendants of the court below (hereinafter “B et al.”) and handled the case on behalf of Defendant B et al., and only dealt with the case on behalf of Defendant B et al.

(3) Although the acts of the defendant with respect to this part of this case have an aspect of dealing with affairs such as others, i.e., B, etc., but if the crime of unjust enrichment is jointly conducted with B, it has an aspect of dealing with the defendant's own affairs. Thus, it does not constitute elements

(4) Even if this portion was found guilty, the Defendant merely received KRW 140 million from C, and KRW 150 million from E, and did not receive KRW 20 million from D.

In addition, the total amount of KRW 150 million out of the total amount of KRW 290 million should be deducted from the amount of additional collection because it was the part of the Z that introduced the site for the known marbling.

Therefore, the amount that the defendant received in relation to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act is merely KRW 140 million and should be collected in addition to KRW 140 million.

B) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act related to solicitation for tax investigation (1) The Defendant did not receive money from B, etc. to select and appoint a tax accountant under the pretext of solicitation for a public official’s handling of money. The Defendant only served the role of delivering the collected expenses from B, etc. to the tax accountant to the tax accountant. (2) The next tax investigation is conducted.

arrow