The meaning of "interest" under Article 78 (2) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act

Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of Mar. 10, 1993) provides that the act of receiving or promising money, valuables, entertainment and other benefits shall be punished. In light of the legislative intent of the above law that prohibits non-legal practitioners from handling legal affairs, the term "interest" under the above provision shall be interpreted to be limited to the economic interest exceeding the compensation for actual expenses, and if it is merely a mere fact that the compensation for actual expenses was paid, it shall not be deemed an offense even in handling legal affairs under the above law.

Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of March 10, 1993)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 95No142 delivered on December 1, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of Mar. 10, 1993) provides that the act of receiving or promising money, valuables, entertainment and other benefits shall be punished. In light of the legislative intent of the above law that prohibits non-legal practitioners from handling legal affairs, the term "interest" under the above provision shall be interpreted to be limited to the economic interest exceeding the compensation for actual expenses, and if it is merely a mere fact that the compensation for actual expenses was paid, it shall not be deemed an offense even in handling legal affairs under the above law.

The court below found that the defendant paid 286,380 won in total, as basic expenses for the preliminary return on the accident site for the appraisal of the cause of the traffic accident, such as taxi franchisium, taxi franchisium and auxiliary personnel expenses necessary for the field survey, photographs such as the site and actual photography, and food expenses. Further, if the defendant added expenses for the perusal of investigation records for the analysis of the cause of the accident, reproduction of the actual situation survey report, etc., collection of witness's statement and preparation of analysis report, it is reasonable that the defendant was acquitted of the defendant on the ground that he was within the scope of compensation for actual expenses, and that the amount of 5,600,000 won received from the non-indicted mother, the president of the Korea Traffic Accident Investigation Institute, belongs to the compensation for actual expenses, and there is no error of misconception of facts or omission of judgment due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)