[1] Whether an act of arranging legal affairs by a person who is not a lawyer constitutes Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (affirmative)

[2] Whether the act of mediating a case to an attorney-at-law without compensation constitutes Article 90 subparagraph 3 and Article 27 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (negative)

[1] In light of the history and legislative intent of Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, an act of a person other than an attorney-at-law to handle legal affairs or arrange the handling of legal affairs in return for money or other valuables constitutes the elements of the same subparagraph. It cannot be deemed that Article 90 subparagraph 3 of the same Act and Article 27 (1) of the same Act separately punishs an act of arranging a person other than an attorney-at-law.

[2] In order to be punished pursuant to Article 90 Item 3 and Article 27 Paragraph (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, a person who mediates a case to an attorney-at-law is required to receive or demand money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits as a price therefor. Thus, if a person mediates a case and received or demands money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits from an attorney-at-law in return, the case is not subject to punishment pursuant to

[1] Article 90 (2) and / [2] Article 27 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[1]

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2597 delivered on April 27, 1982 (Gong1982, 543) and Supreme Court Decision 86Do1720 Delivered on December 31, 1986 (Gong1987, 272)

Defendant 1 and one other

Attorney Lee In-hee

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, and by a fine of five thousand won, respectively.

When Defendant 2 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 20,000 won into one day.

With respect to Defendant 1, 35 days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 1 shall order Defendant 1 to provide community service for 120 hours for public or public facilities service activities.

The amount of KRW 3,500,000 shall be collected from Defendant 2.

Criminal facts

Defendant 1 is the head of the office of Nonindicted Party 1’s attorney-at-law and Defendant 2’s head of the office of Nonindicted Party 2’s attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, or who provides or promises to give them to a third party, but is not allowed to handle legal affairs, such as a litigation case, or arrange such

1. Defendant 1: (a) introduced a litigation case while attracting a litigation case; and (b) introduced a case of approximately 20% of the fee to the attorney of the non-indicted 1; and (c) introduced the case to the non-indicted 1 attorney at the office of the non-indicted 1 attorney-at-law in the first instance trial on January 1, 1997, the defendant 2 introduced the registration of transfer of land ownership that the non-indicted 1 attorney was in progress in the appellate trial as the defendant; (d) introduced the case of the non-indicted 1 attorney-at-law in the office of the non-indicted 1 attorney-at-law at the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1 attorney-at-law as his agent; and (e) ordered the non-indicted 1 attorney-at-law to appoint 1,500,000 won for the appointment of the above case from the non-indicted 1 attorney-at-law on July 1, 195; and (e) introduced the above case of KRW 300,00,000,00.

2. On January 1, 1997, Defendant 2 introduced a proxy from the appellate court of the case where the defendant filed a claim for the registration of transfer of land ownership in the law office of the case where the defendant was the defendant in the second law office of the defendant, who was the defendant in the second law office of the defendant, and introduced the defendant 1, who was the chief of the office of the non-indicted 1, to appoint the attorney-at-law of the non-indicted 1, and made the non-indicted 1, to pay 1,500,000 won to the non-indicted 1, who was the chief of the office of the non-indicted 1, at that time. On April 1, 1996, the defendant 2 received 200,000 won of the appointment fee from the non-indicted 1, through the non-indicted 1, to August 1997, and arranged the litigation case over 111 times from April 19 to August 199, the total amount received from the above defendant 1 through the above defendant 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts stated in this Court by the Defendants

1. Statement that conforms to the facts indicated in the protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the prosecutor;

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment among the written statements concerning the breeding, virtue, and Kim Yong-sik prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Statement consistent with the judgment in relation to Defendant 1’s report on the result of search, seizure, and verification warrant to the head office of the District Prosecutors’ Office;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendants: Article 90 subparag. 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act; Article 90 subparag. 3 of the Attorney-at-Law Act; Article 27(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Selection of ordinary competition and type of punishment;

Each so-called "Defendant 2": Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act shall be punished, and each fine shall be selected)

Defendant 1: Determination of imprisonment with labor

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Defendant 1 shall be subject to Paragraph 10 of Attached Table 1 with the largest judgment of the court below, and Defendant 2 shall not be subject to the increase of punishment and business as to the violation of Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law No. 2 of the Attached Table 2 with the largest judgment of the court below, and it shall be deemed that each mediation act constitutes one crime on the grounds that it does not constitute an aggravated punishment and business as to the violation of Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendant 2: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Defendant 1: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant 1: Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Ratification;

Defendant 2: the latter part of Article 94 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Judgment on the defendants' assertion on Article 90 Item 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "any person, other than an attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits or who provides or promises to provide them to a third party, shall be punished under the above provision in return for the promise of receiving or promising to receive such money, valuables, or other benefits to do so, or who handles or mediates such acts with respect to litigation cases, non-contentious cases, family cases, family conciliation cases, requests for adjudication, administrative appeals or review or objection to administrative agencies, or other appeals against administrative agencies, investigation cases handled by an investigation agency or investigation cases under investigation by an Act and subordinate statutes or other general legal cases handled by an investigation agency," and "a person who handles or arranges such acts shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 10 million won, or both."

2. The defendants' assertion is related to the interpretation of the "act" under Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act. In other words, such act referred to in the above Article does not mean only the part concerning the handling of legal affairs such as a litigation case, but also means the whole part of the case where a person other than an attorney-at-law handles legal affairs such as a litigation case in return for receiving or promising to receive money, etc., and therefore, it does not constitute the above provision to arrange the handling of legal affairs such as a litigation case against a person other than an attorney-at-law. The defendants are grounds for the above argument, Article 27 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act and Article 27 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act and Article 90 (3) of the same Act provides that "any person other than an attorney-at-law shall not receive or require money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits to a specific attorney-at-law in return." In other words, Article 90 (1) 2 of the latter part of Article 90 (1) of the Attorney-at-law provides that the defendant's litigation case be punished for the defendant.

3. However, such interpretation is difficult to accept in light of the history of the above provision and its legislative intent.

Article 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 751, Oct. 17, 1961; Act No. 1225, Dec. 24, 1962; Act No. 1554, Nov. 24, 1961; Act No. 1885, Nov. 29, 200; Act No. 1944, Nov. 24, 2005; Act No. 1965, Nov. 24, 2005; Act No. 1964, Nov. 26, 2006; Act No. 1965, Jan. 26, 2006; Act No. 1964, Feb. 24, 2006; Act No. 1960, Jan. 22, 2006; Act No. 1960, Feb. 3, 2007>

4. Regarding Article 72 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-law Act (amended by Act No. 3594, Dec. 31, 1982; 86Do1720, Dec. 31, 1986; the Supreme Court held that "any person other than an attorney-at-law who acts as an attorney-at-law shall act as an attorney-at-law in favor of or arrange for a case to act as an attorney-at-law" shall be subject to punishment under the above provision. In addition, Article 92 subparagraph 2 of the former Act on the Regulation of Administrative Affairs (amended by Act No. 3594, Dec. 31, 1982; Article 92 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-law Act (amended by Act No. 3594, Dec. 31, 1982); Article 72 of the former Attorney-at-law Act provides that "any person other than an attorney-at-law shall not handle legal affairs such as litigation cases, non-contentious cases, appeal cases, arbitration or reconciliation cases, or other legal affairs."

5. However, although the purport of the provisions of the Attorney-at-Law Act in Japan and most expressions differ from the structure and partial expressions, it seems to be followed. In particular, Article 27(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "any person shall introduce, mediate, and accept the parties or other persons concerned with respect to the acceptance of a legal case or a legal case, and shall not receive or demand it as compensation therefor, and shall not receive or demand it in return therefor." Article 90 Subparag. 3 of the Attorney-at-law Act provides that it is punished, thereby creating confusion in the interpretation of the relevant provision. In other words, Article 27(1) and Article 90 Subparag. 3 of the newly established Attorney-at-law Act provide that anyone shall be punished when receiving money and other valuables and mediates a legal case to a lawyer, and therefore, Article 90 Subparag. 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that any person who is not an attorney-at-law shall be punished for legal affairs other than the provision of Article 90 Subparag. 2 of the Act. 2.

6. However, this question or interpretation is difficult to accept. Since Article 1(1) of the former Act on the Regulation of Administrative Affairs under Article 90 subparag. 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law, which is the immediately preceding provision that falls under Article 90 subparag. 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 78 subparag. 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, is clear that it is a provision that a person who is not an attorney-at-law handles legal affairs by receiving money and other valuables, or that a person who is not an attorney-at-law handles legal affairs by receiving money and other valuables, contains the purport of Article 90 subparag. 2 of the current Attorney-at-Law Act, and it contains the purport of Article 90 subparag. 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act. It cannot be said that a provision that overlapping interpretation of Article 27(1) was newly established on March 10, 193 and its meaning would be changed automatically (the need of legislation to resolve confusion caused by duplication of Article 90 subparag. 2 and Article

7. Therefore, a non-legal person's act of receiving money, etc. and dealing with the first legal affairs or arranging the handling of the second legal affairs falls under the elements of the composition under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act. Thus, the defendants' arguments are not accepted in the dissenting opinion.

Parts of innocence

1. Of the instant public prosecution, the summary of the violation of Article 90 subparag. 3 and Article 27(1) of the Attorney-at-Law against Defendant 1 among the charges of this case is found guilty, Defendant 1’s introduction of the litigation case from Defendant 2, etc. and referral of the case to Nonindicted 1 to the attorney-at-law, and so-called “non-indicted 1’s grant of money to Defendant 2, etc.” falls under Article 27(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

2. Therefore, Article 27 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "any person who introduces, mediates, or induces parties to legal affairs or other persons concerned in connection with the acceptance of legal affairs or legal affairs to a specific attorney-at-law, and shall not receive or demand money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits in return." It is clear that a person who mediates a case to an attorney-at-law is required to receive or demand money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits in return for the purpose of being punished pursuant to Article 90 (3) and Article 27 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

3. However, even based on the facts charged itself, Defendant 1 arranged the case as above and let the above non-indicted 1 give money to Defendant 2, etc. (the prosecutor clearly stated this point on the trial date of this case). Defendant 1 does not receive or demand money, valuables, entertainment and other benefits from the above non-indicted 1 in return for the mediation of this case, and if Defendant 1’s facts charged for domestic affairs purport that Defendant 1 received money from the above non-indicted 1, there is no evidence to acknowledge this point.

4. Thus, the charge of violation of Article 90 subparagraph 3 and Article 27 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act against Defendant 1 among the facts charged in the case of this case shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's case is not a crime or there is no proof of a crime. However, since the defendant is found guilty as to the so-called violation of Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, it shall not

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Gyeong-ho (Presiding Judge) Lee Jong-ho