Whether a public official intends to make an actual solicitation for a case dealt with, and whether a violation of Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is established

Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Do436 delivered on March 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 728) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9387 Delivered on March 10, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4518 Delivered on October 12, 2006

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Soh-ho et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2006No2150 decided Feb. 16, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of violation of Article 111 of the Attorney-at-law Act, which is established by accepting money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting a case handled by a public official, is not affected by the establishment of the crime if receiving money and valuables under the pretext of such solicitation is for his own gain even though the person who received money and valuables did not actually think of such solicitation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do436, Mar. 25, 1986; 2005Do9387, Mar. 10, 2006; 2006Do4518, Oct. 12, 2006). In light of such legal principles, since the defendant received money and valuables in this case as if he were to receive money and valuables under the pretext of such solicitation, the defendant's act of this case does not constitute the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-law Act, it cannot be accepted.

The remaining grounds of appeal are the purport that the evidence preparation and fact-finding of the court below, which is the fact-finding court, are trees, and in recognizing the defendant's guilty of the facts charged in this case, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the rules of evidence in light of the process of collecting evidence through the court below and the court of first instance, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in this case where a minor sentence

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

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)