The meaning of Article 90 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act that "to receive money or valuables under the pretext of making a solicitation or mediation in connection with cases or affairs handled by a public official" means a provision that provides that

The phrase "money and valuables" in Article 90 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act refers to cases where money and valuables are received under the pretext of mediating between a public official and a client with respect to cases or affairs dealt with by a public official, or where money and valuables are received in return for providing labor in connection with cases or affairs dealt with by a public official without the premise, and where money and valuables are received in return for such money and valuables, it cannot be deemed that money and valuables are received under the pretext of soliciting or arranging for cases or affairs dealt with by a public official.

Subparagraph 1 of Article 90 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Attorney So Young-young

Suwon District Court Decision 96No1784 delivered on January 14, 1997

All appeals are dismissed.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below is justified in finding the facts of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, money and valuables are given and received under the pretext of soliciting or arranging cases or affairs handled by a public official under Article 90 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act. It does not mean that money and valuables are given and received under the pretext of mediating between a public official and a client with respect to cases or affairs handled by a public official. It does not mean that money and valuables are given and received under the pretext of providing labor in connection with cases or affairs handled by a public official and receiving money and valuables in return for such consideration. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records, the fact-finding by the court below that the defendants offered a bribe to the person in charge of the examination of electrical appliances for convenience, etc. is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and the defendants' act does not constitute a violation of social rules merely within the scope of a private case, and it does not violate the social rules. Therefore,

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)