[1] The meaning of "agent" under Article 90 (2) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, and the meaning of "an analysis and mediation of acquisition of real estate subject to auction" under Article 19-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Brokerage Act

[2] The case holding that where a bid price is determined in an auction case for a person who desires to purchase an auction real estate without legal knowledge, and a bid price is actually made by participating in all the auction process except for submission of a bid price by stating a title on the tender, such as preparing a bid list, and a bid is held as an agent for an auction, and where money is received as a commission, it does not constitute an "agent under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act" under Article 19-2 subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Brokerage Act, and it does not constitute "the analysis of rights to real estate subject to auction and mediation for acquisition"

[1] In light of the purport of subparagraph 2 of Article 90 of the former Attorney-at-Law (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200) (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jul. 29, 200) intending to maintain an attorney-at-law system by prohibiting a person, other than an attorney-at-law, from handling legal affairs, an "agent" under the above Article 90 2 shall be deemed to include not only the act of dealing with legal affairs under his/her own authority, but also the act of using legal knowledge on behalf of himself/herself, or the act of using legal affairs on behalf of him/her, such as actual consultation for the acquisition of legal affairs on behalf of him/her, but also the case where a person who is not an attorney-at-law intends to have the same effect as that of his/her agent. It shall be deemed that the procedure of enforcing the above Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20168 of the real Estate Brokerage Act). 7008).

[2] The case holding that where a bid price is determined in an auction case for a person who desires to purchase an auction real estate without legal knowledge, and a bid price is paid by participating in all the auction process except for submission of a bid list by stating a title on the tender, and a bid is awarded as a substitute for an auction, it is only an "agent" under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200), and it does not fall under "an agency for an auction" under Article 19-2 subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16837 of Jun. 7, 200).

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1, Article 9-2 subparag. 4, and Article 17(1) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 6236 of Jan. 28, 2000), Article 19-2 subparag. 2 and Article 22(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16837 of Jun. 7, 2000), Article 90 subparag. 2 (see current Article 109 subparag. 1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200) / [2] Article 19-2 subparag. 2 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16837 of Jun. 7, 200), Article 19-2 subparag. 2 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 16839 of Jan. 28, 2000)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Do2193 delivered on December 24, 1999 (Gong2000Sang, 349) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 90Do98 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1195) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Do3005 delivered on September 7, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2150)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 2000No8974 delivered on January 31, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the purport of subparagraph 2 of Article 90 of the former Attorney-at-Law (amended by Act No. 6207, Jan. 28, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) (amended by Act No. 6207, Jul. 29, 200) intending to maintain an attorney-at-law system by prohibiting a person, other than an attorney-at-law, from dealing with legal affairs, 'agent' under the above Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-law Act means not only a legal representative handling legal affairs under his/her own authority, but also an act necessary for using legal knowledge on behalf of her principal, or an act that actually takes place the same effect as that of her own, while leading to the handling of cases for her lacking legal knowledge, 'the fact that the court of execution forced the realization of real estate against her owner's will' (see Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree No. 97, Jul. 29, 2007).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant in collusion with Co-Defendant 1 and 2 of the court of first instance determined the bid price in the auction case on behalf of the person who wants to purchase the insufficient auction real estate without legal knowledge, and caused the bid price to be awarded by participating in all auction proceedings except for submission of the bid name by preparing a bid list, etc., and received money as a commission. The above act of the defendant is merely an act of representation under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, and it does not constitute an act of representation under Article 19-2 subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Brokerage Act, and it does not constitute an act of arranging the analysis and acquisition of the right to the real estate subject to auction. In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact finding and decision of the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as argued in the

2. According to the records, the above co-defendant 1 and 2, who is an employee of the intermediary corporation, can be recognized that the defendant deposited in the defendant who is the actual manager of the intermediary corporation as soon as he received all the money received as a commission for an auction on behalf of the broker corporation, and the defendant consumed it as the operating expenses of the intermediary corporation. Thus, the court below's decision that the defendant collected the total amount of KRW 38,700,000, which is the amount received as a commission for an auction bidding in collusion with the above co-defendant 1 and 2, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged.

3. In light of the provisions of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in this case where a minor sentence is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than 10 years, the reason that the sentencing of punishment is unfair is not legitimate grounds 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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)