beta
Text
All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) According to Article 249(1)4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), the statute of limitations for Defendant C’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), the prosecution of this case was instituted on October 1, 201. From April 29, 2005 to September 30, 2007, the statute of limitations for the prosecution of this case had already been expired for the portion from April 29, 2005 to October 10, 206, and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced (the defendant C was remanded to the court of first instance to the court that the attorney-at-law of this case was a partner of the law firm at the time of the crime of this case, and thus, all of the charges of this case cannot be deemed a single comprehensive crime.
This is not a legitimate reason for appeal since it is alleged after the appeal is not timely, but it is to be determined to include this part by considering the purport to supplement the reason for appeal.
2) Defendant A was employed by the above Defendants, an attorney-at-law, rather than by borrowing the name of Defendant C and B, and carried out the duties under the direction and supervision of the Defendants.
B. The lower court’s sentencing (a year of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants A, two years of suspended sentence, fines of 25 million won for the Defendants B, and fines of 15 million won for the Defendants C) against the Defendants by the public prosecutor is deemed unreasonable.
2. The statute of limitations of a single comprehensive crime against Defendant C’s assertion that the statute of limitations has expired from the time when the last criminal act was committed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002). The charges of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act against Defendant C constitute the same kind of crime under the name of a single and continuous criminal intent, committed from April 29, 2005 to September 30, 2007 with respect to the act of lending an attorney-at-law to Defendant A from April 29, 2005, and the same legal benefits are the same.