The case holding that a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and a crime of fraud are similar.

The defendant case, such as the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, etc., committed by the defendant, was received money from the public official concerned under the pretext that the defendant solicits the public official concerned to transfer (A) a request for auction case pending in the district court to the district court, and during that process, the original copy of the auction announcement order issued by the district court under subparagraph (a) was forged to use it to the above non-indicted (A). Thus, the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, etc. and the crime of fraud of this case are identical or similar crimes in light of the means and method of the crime, type of crime, etc.

Article 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Daegu High Court Decision 82No171,82No298 delivered on November 19, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The period of detention pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence for twenty days.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for identification (hereinafter only referred to as the defendant).

According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below and the court of first instance, the facts of habitual fraud and the requirements for care and custody against the defendant, such as the time of the original judgment, are recognized lawfully, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence by failing to exhaust all deliberations

In addition, according to the legal reasoning of the court below, the criminal facts of the defendant's case, such as the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which the defendant was sentenced by the Daegu High Court on February 26, 1981, were received KRW 1,725,00 from the former court on the pretext that the defendant solicited the public official concerned to transfer the case pending in the Jeju District Court to Busan District Court, and during that process, the defendant forged the original copy of the auction announcement order issued by the Busan District Court on the ground that the crime constituted the crime and the crime of fraud of this case include the elements of deceiving the money provider while exercising the original copy of the official document. Thus, the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-law Act and the crime of fraud of this case are the same or similar crimes in light of the means and method of the crime, and the type of the crime. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there is no error of law as the court below's 7 years of protective custody theory under Article 5(2)1 of the Social Protection Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)