[1] The case holding that it is difficult to regard it as "a performance of affairs of a certified judicial scrivener" under Article 2 (1) of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act as "a performance of affairs by another person's delegation"

[2] Criteria to determine whether a person who is not a certified judicial scrivener has "business affairs of a certified judicial scrivener"

[3] The case holding that a certified judicial scrivener's affairs cannot be viewed as "business"

[1] The case holding that where the defendant, who is not a certified judicial scrivener, handles the affairs of a certified judicial scrivener as stipulated in Article 2 (1) 1 and 5 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act in the position of the vice-chairperson of the apartment house council in accordance with the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives, and receives the expenses for business promotion as stipulated in the management rules of the council of occupants' representatives, it shall not be deemed that he performs the affairs of a certified judicial scrivener in return for

[2] Whether a person, who is not a certified judicial scrivener, has "business affairs of a certified judicial scrivener" or not, shall be determined according to social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the repetition of affairs, continuity of affairs, business nature, etc., and the purpose, size, recovery, period, attitude, etc. of such acts. It is not only to repeatedly receive remuneration, but also to continuously handle such affairs with a intention to continue such affairs.

[3] The case holding that a certified judicial scrivener's affairs cannot be viewed as "business"

[1] Articles 2(1), 3, and 74(1)1 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act / [2] Articles 2(1), 3, and 74(1)1 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act / [3] Articles 2(1), 3, and 74(1)1 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do1558 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1507) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 83Do403 delivered on June 28, 1983 (Gong1983, 1153) 88Do98 delivered on August 9, 198 (Gong198, 1219), Supreme Court Decision 91Do1274 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong191, 2279), Supreme Court Decision 97Do354 delivered on May 23, 197

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2002No1684 delivered on January 24, 2003

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

1. Judgment of the court below on the violation of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act

A. As to the violation of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act, the summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant is the vice-chairperson of the 1 complex representative council of Daejeon-gu apartment complex (hereinafter referred to as the "council of occupants' representatives"), while a person who is not a certified judicial scrivener is not a business to prepare documents to be submitted to the court and the prosecutor's office, despite the fact that on July 200, the management office of the apartment complex was unable to engage in the business to vicariously submit documents to the court and the prosecutor's office. However, at the same time on July 1, 200, against the occupants who are the delinquent in the management office of the apartment complex, the principal lawsuit No. 10179, 2000, 5 Dong 10785, 5 Dong 140 against the occupants, the provisional seizure No. 2000, 2006, 31.206, 156, 2006, 167, 2006, 167.

B. In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court of first instance, the court below held that the defendant, as the vice-chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives on June 19, 200, was authorized by the council of occupants' representatives to prepare and submit necessary documents for six cases, such as principal litigation, provisional seizure of real estate, provisional seizure of claims, etc., which was brought against the occupants in arrears with the management expenses of the apartment, and that the defendant performed his duties by proxy at the council of occupants' representatives' representatives held on July 19, 200, the management rules of the Republic of Korea allow the officers of the council of occupants' representatives to pay expenses equivalent to social status when they perform their duties, so that the members of the council of occupants' representatives present at the council of occupants' representatives' representatives, Kim Jong-ok, who received the above fees from the defendant on behalf of the above 1,000 won per case, after hearing the opinion of the defendant and submitting the above fees to the court on August 2, 2000, 2600 won per case and 2.

2. The judgment of this Court

It is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the defendant who is not a certified judicial scrivener is engaged in the business of preparing documents and submitting agency documents received remuneration by delegation by the council of occupants' representatives.

A. According to the facts and records established by the court below, the defendant served as the president of the council of occupants' representatives of one complex of apartment complex from January 1, 199 to December 31, 200, and the amount in arrears has accumulated, the defendant decided to collect 45,782,040 won for 13 households in accordance with the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives on June 19, 200 and decided to pay management expenses for 11,017,610 won to the defendant who is the vice president of the council of occupants' representatives by demanding the payment of the management expenses for 10,00 won for the households in arrears with management expenses for 3 months or longer according to the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives; the defendant prepared two copies of the management expenses for each apartment complex of 1 complex of 20,000 won for each case of 20,000 won for the above management expenses for 10,000 won or more for the defendant's general affairs of the council of occupants' representatives;

B. In addition, whether a person who is not a certified judicial scrivener has been referred to as "business of a certified judicial scrivener" or not shall be determined according to social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the repetition of affairs, continuity of affairs, business nature, etc., and the purpose, size, frequency, period, attitude, etc. of such act (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do998, Aug. 9, 198). It is not only to continuously receive remuneration and continuously handle such affairs, but also to conduct such affairs once with a intention to continue to continue such affairs (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do354, May 23, 197).

According to the above facts, even if the defendant had been in office as the vice-chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives, and the litigation documents prepared and submitted by the defendant to the court are six cases, but they have been delegated to the court at the same time, and the activity expenses have been received at one time, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had an intention to continue the affairs of a certified judicial scrivener in the record, it cannot be said that he had "the affairs of a certified judicial scrivener" even if the defendant had been in office with the delegation of the council of occupants' representatives, even if he had been in office with the remuneration delegated by the council

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act or by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, on the ground that the defendant performed the affairs of a certified judicial scrivener with the delegation by the council of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act shall be reversed. Since the court below sentenced the defendant to a single punishment for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the whole judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)