The application of Articles 53 and 48 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Law No. 2654 of Dec. 20, 1973) shall apply in case where a person received money from an investigative agency for a case under investigation, but there is no such solicitation in reality (negative)

Even if money has been received under the pretext of inducing a solicitation for an investigation case under investigation by an investigative agency, if there is no such solicitation, it cannot be said that there is an act corresponding to a solicitation under Article 48, which is punished by Article 53 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Act No. 2654, Dec. 20, 1973). Thus, it cannot be said that there is an act corresponding to the solicitation under Article 53, Article 48 of the above Attorney-at-Law Act.

Articles 48, 53 and 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Law No. 2654, Dec. 20, 1973), 48, 53, and 54

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor (Defendant 1) and Defendants

Attorney Lee Jin-jin, Park Jin-chul, Kim Man, Cho Jae-sik

Jeonju District Court Decision 79No537 delivered on March 26, 1980

The conviction part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Jeonju District Court. The prosecutor and Defendant 2's appeal are all dismissed.

1. We examine the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted Defendant 1 on the ground that the defendant received 10,000 won from the non-indicted 1 in the charges of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act under the pretext that he would give the head of the non-indicted 1's solicitation to grant the approval of an administrative secretary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it for the reasons as stated in its holding, and therefore, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to a violation

2. We also examine the grounds of appeal on the violation of occupational duty by the defense counsel’s reargument and this Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin’s occupational breach of trust (the grounds of appeal to supplement Defendant 1’s attorney Kim

According to the judgment of the court of first instance affirmed by the court below, it is identical to the theory that the applicable provisions for the crime of occupational breach of trust of Defendant 1 are stated in Article 356 (2) of the Criminal Act, but there is no such provision in the Criminal Act, and since Article 356 (2) of the Criminal Act is recognized as a clear clerical error in Article 356 of the Criminal Act with respect to the crime of occupational breach of trust of Defendant 2, there is no violation of the law in the application of the theory of lawsuit. In addition, according to comparison with the evidence presented in the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below with the records, the crime in the judgment of the court of first instance can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or incomplete reasoning, and there is no violation of the law in the process of evidence preparation and fact-finding, and there is no so-called

3. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by the defense counsel.

According to the first instance court's decision maintained by the court below, the defendant committed a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against the defendant 1 (A) in collusion with the non-indicted 2, and ordered four persons, such as the non-indicted 3, etc. who were under detention at the office of the Southern District Prosecutors' Office to be prone to gambling, and (b) to receive 600,000 won in school expenses from the non-indicted 4 to the office of the Southern District Prosecutors' Office in charge of gross negligence-homicide death, and released the non-indicted 5 under investigation from the non-indicted 5 at the office of the South Korean Prosecutors' Office and the branch of the South Korean Court in charge of the above 20,000 won in school expenses, (c) to the non-indicted 6 to the non-indicted 2's office of the South Korean Prosecutors' Office in charge of indecent act by force, and to release them from the above 20,000 won in school expenses under the pretext of the request of the non-indicted 3 to the above office of the prosecution.

However, in light of the above facts (A) and (c), since the above defendant merely received money on the ground of solicitation and actually there was such solicitation, it cannot be deemed that there was an act corresponding to a solicitation under Article 48, which is punished by Article 53 of the Attorney-at-Law Act in this case, and as to the facts (d) above, the indictment was filed by applying Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act in this case, and the facts of the above judgment (Article 1978-129 of the former District Prosecutor's Office, Article 1978-129 of the former District Prosecutor's Office, Article 78-Ma33 of the Jeonju District Court's Branch Office, and Article 53-48 of the Attorney-at-Law Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance, which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance, has an error of law by misapprehending the legal application, and it is therefore justified.

Therefore, since the necessity of judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal is not sufficient, since the crime of occupational breach of trust and the crime of occupational breach of trust, which were judged to have no grounds of appeal prior to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Defendant 1, the part on Defendant 1

4. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the guilty portion against Defendant 1 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division which is the court below. The prosecutor and Defendant 2's appeal are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)