(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.29 2016노506 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.29 2016노506

변호사법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the penalty amounting to KRW 35 million, the penalty amounting to KRW 41,747,390) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant is that he is the first offender, and his mistake is repented.

However, the crime of this case was committed by a person who is not an attorney-at-law for the purpose of gaining fixed profits by lending the name of the juristic person to which he belongs and the attorney-at-law in charge. In light of the purpose of the attorney-at-law system that prevents an unqualified person from participating in other person's legal cases, protecting the interests of interested persons, promoting fairness of legal life and smooth operation of law and order

The defendant's receipt of KRW 1.2 million per month from C appears to be a quid pro quo for the lending of attorney's name, even if the above money was included, and actually used the above money in office rent, management fee, etc.

Even if this is not an incidental expense or a method of consuming the act of lending the name in the course of committing the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the act of lending the attorney's name, it is not an incidental expense or a method of consuming the name according to

In addition, the lower court’s sentencing is determined to be appropriate, and it does not seem unfair because it is too unreasonable, in light of the following circumstances, comprehensively takes account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the previous theory.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition, since the defendant's appeal is without merit.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.30 2016노2233

-수원지방법원 2017.04.12 2017노449

-서울고등법원 2014.04.25 2013노3263

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.20 2016노4197

-수원지방법원 2017.07.14 2017노2509