In cases where a person, other than an attorney-at-law, receives or promises to receive money, valuables, etc. and takes advantage of other person's legal affairs and conducts the relevant legal affairs in an amount which he/she is the holder after having taken over rights from other persons, whether it constitutes the elements of Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 112 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, legislative history, contents and form of each text and text, in cases where a person, other than an attorney-at-law, receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, and where he/she handles the relevant legal affairs in a manner to deal with legal affairs concerning others' legal cases, he/she shall be deemed to fall under Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law

Subparagraph 1 of Article 109 and Subparagraph 1 of Article 112 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Cho Jae-won

Cheongju District Court Decision 2013No377 decided October 25, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of each provision of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 112 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, legislative history, contents and form of each provision, in cases where a person, other than an attorney-at-law, receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits, and where he/she handles the relevant legal affairs in a limited manner to deal with legal affairs concerning legal cases of others, he/she shall be deemed as constituting elements of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the court below, the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act since the defendant's act of litigation at the auction procedure of this case for the non-indicted 1 is subject to Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act because he promises the defendant to receive money from the non-indicted 1 in return for delegation of the distribution of the dividend of this case to the non-indicted 1 and actually takes over the claim and the right to collateral security of this case in a formal manner, and it did not err in the misapprehension of

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of embezzlement against the victim non-indicted 1 among the facts charged in this case and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act related to non-indicted 2, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on embezzlement, violation of the rules of evidence,

3. In addition, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed. Thus, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal

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

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)