[1] Whether an act of an attorney-at-law's act of arranging a proxy for a litigation case to an affiliated attorney-at-law and receiving money in return constitutes a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[2] Whether an attorney's act of receiving referral from his/her employee constitutes a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (affirmative)

[3] Whether the attorney's fees that he/she accepted in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act are subject to additional collection under the Attorney-at-Law Act (negative)

[4] The case where the Supreme Court reversed the original court's erroneous collection

[1] The act of an attorney-at-law's act of arranging a proxy for a litigation case to an affiliated attorney-at-law and receiving money and valuables in return constitutes a referral under the latter part of Article 90 (2) of the former Attorney-at-law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200).

[2] An act of an attorney-at-law to arrange for a legal case from his/her legal office staff constitutes a violation of Article 90 subparagraph 3 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200) and Article 27 (2) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act.

[3] The necessary additional collection under Article 94 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200) is aimed at preventing a person who violated the provisions of Article 27 of the same Act from holding unlawful profits acquired by such violation. Even if an attorney-at-law accepts a legal case in violation of Article 27 (2) of the same Act, the acceptance contract and the litigation following the acceptance of the case are valid. The fees that the defendant has accepted on the legal case are not the fees that he/she has received on the legal case, but the fees that he/she has received on the legal case are not the fees that he/she has received on the legal case, but the illegal profits derived from the violation of Article 27 (2) of the same Act

[4] The case where the Supreme Court made a mistake in the collection of additional charges, and the Supreme Court made a judgment of reversal

[1] Article 90 subparagraph 2 (see current Article 109 subparagraph 1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200) / [2] Article 27 (2) (see current Article 34 (3)) and Article 90 subparagraph 3 (see current Article 109 subparagraph 2) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200) / [3] Article 27 (2) (see current Article 34 (3)) and Article 94 (see current Article 116) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200) / [4] Article 16 (3) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200); Article 16 (3) of the current Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Do2597 delivered on April 27, 1982 (Gong1982, 543) Supreme Court Decision 86Do1720 delivered on December 23, 1986 (Gong1987, 272) Supreme Court Decision 99Do2491 delivered on September 7, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2148), Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2253 delivered on September 29, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2267) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do3697 delivered on June 15, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1702)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul High Court Decision 98No1439 delivered on October 10, 2000

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed. All parts of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as to Defendant 2 are reversed. Defendant 2 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,000. Where Defendant 2 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 20,000 into one day.

1. Judgment on Defendant 1’s appeal

A. The court below is justified in finding that Defendant 1 was engaged in legal affairs, such as receiving money and valuables from the Kim Line and preparing and submitting a complaint to the court despite the fact that Defendant 1 is not an attorney-at-law, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal on this part

B. An attorney-at-law's act of mediating a litigation case to his attorney-at-law and receiving money and valuables in return for this act constitutes a referral under the latter part of Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do2491, Sept. 7, 199; 2000Do253, Sept. 29, 200). In the same purport, the court below acknowledged the fact that Defendant 1 arranged a litigation case to his attorney-at-law and received 3,658,00 won over 31 times in return, and determined that such act by Defendant 1 constitutes a violation of Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Act, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal. Therefore, this part of the grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

C. In addition, in this case where a sentence of imprisonment for less than 10 years is imposed, the argument that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Therefore, this part of the ground for appeal cannot be accepted.

2. Judgment on Defendant 2’s appeal

A. The act of an attorney-at-law to arrange for a legal case from his/her legal office staff constitutes a violation of Article 90 subparag. 3 and Article 27(2) of the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do3697, Jun. 15, 2000). In the same purport, the court below is proper to determine that the act of an attorney-at-law arranged for a legal case from Defendant 1, who is the legal office staff he/she operates, constitutes a violation of Article 90 subparag. 3 and Article 27(2) of the Act, and there is no error in matters of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal

B. The court below acknowledged that Defendant 2 accepted the case over 31 times with the referral of a legal case from Defendant 1 and received a total of KRW 8,763,00,00 from Defendant 2, and determined that Defendant 2 should additionally collect the fees in accordance with Article 94 of the Act, since the fees received by Defendant 2 are unjust gains acquired by unlawful means.

However, the purpose of the necessary additional collection pursuant to Article 94 of the Act is to prevent a person who violates the provisions of Article 27 of the Act from holding unjust profits acquired by such violation (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1569, Dec. 28, 1993). Even if an attorney-at-law accepts a legal case in violation of Article 27(2) of the Act, the delegation agreement and procedural acts pertaining thereto are valid. In this case, the delegation fees that Defendant 2 accepted for a legal case are not the consideration for a legal case, but the delegation fees that he/she has received is not the consideration for a valid delegation contract, which is valid under the private law, and the agency fees that he/she has received is not the consideration for a legal case, and thus, it is not the object of additional collection.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that the fees received by Defendant 2 are subject to additional collection is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to additional collection under Article 94 of the Act, and this affected the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed, and the part against Defendant 2 among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is sufficient for this court to render a judgment, and it is directly decided as follows pursuant to Article 396(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2 is that there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 90 subparags. 2 and 3 of the Act and collection, and that the judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of Defendant 2 constituted Articles 90 subparags. 3 and 27(2) of the Act, is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to collection, but there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to collection from Defendant 2. Thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to collection from additional collection from Defendant 2. Thus, this part of the grounds for appeal pointed out is reasonable, and this part of the grounds for appeal is

Since the facts charged and the summary of evidence recognized by this court are the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, they are quoted in accordance with Articles 399 and 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Defendant 2’s act constitutes Article 90 subparag. 3, Article 27(2) of the Act, and Article 37(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides that when Defendant 2 fails to pay the fine, Defendant 2 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)