beta
Text
The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants, as an attorney-at-law’s staff, are subject to the C-at-law’s instruction and consent, and are engaged in business under such instruction and supervision.
The prosecution examination protocol dated August 27, 2010 against the Defendants is inadmissible.
2. The duties of an attorney-at-law are to conduct legal affairs widely in accordance with the mission of protecting fundamental human rights and realizing social justice. As such, the Attorney-at-Law Act strictly limits the qualification of an attorney-at-law and takes all necessary measures, such as ensuring that the attorney-at-law complies with the regulations necessary for the good
Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-law Act prohibiting the handling of legal affairs by a non-legal practitioner should be construed as having the intention to avoid such concerns by maintaining the lawyer system, as it is likely to interfere with the fairness of legal life and smooth operation of law as well as impairing the interests of the parties or other interested persons, or disrupt the law and order, if a person who does not comply with the law does not have the qualification of such a lawyer or to intervene in other persons
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do2340 delivered on August 21, 1998). Accordingly, even if a person is in the position of an attorney-at-law, in cases where he/she has agreed to handle legal affairs and receive money in return for his/her own responsibility and calculation without being supervised and supervised by the attorney-at-law beyond the role of assisting the attorney-at-law.
In full view of the following circumstances, among the evidence adopted and investigated by the court below, which are recognized only by the remaining evidence except for the statement of the protocol of interrogation of the prosecution (refluence) on August 27, 2010 against the Defendants, the Defendants shall be subject to their own responsibility and account without reporting to C attorney-at-law with respect to the legal affairs of this case.