[1] Whether the act of a member of the office of an attorney-at-law mediating a litigation case to his/her affiliated attorney-at-law and receiving money and valuables in return constitutes a referral under the latter part of Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act

[2] Whether Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 90 subparagraph 3 of the same Act and Article 27 (1) of the same Act apply where a person who is not an attorney-at-law receives money and arranges a legal case to the attorney-at-law (affirmative)

[1] The term "mediation" under the latter part of Article 90 (2) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 2000) refers to the act of mediating or facilitating the conclusion of delegation contracts, etc. on legal cases or legal affairs bilaterally between the parties to a legal case and the other party who deals with legal affairs such as representation, etc. Therefore, even if delegation contracts, etc. are not established in reality, it may not be established. It includes not only the person who requested the referral of the remuneration, but also the case where the non-legal person receives the payment from the other party or both parties, and also the case where the non-legal person mediates the other non-legal person to act as a legal case, as well as the case where the non-legal person mediates the other non-legal person to act as a legal case and mediates the act of receiving money and other valuables in return, it constitutes the latter part of Article 90 (3) and Article 27 (1) of the same Act.

[2] Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200) and Article 90 subparagraph 3 of the same Act and Article 27 (1) of the same Act shall be deemed to exist concurrently with respect to the act by a person other than an attorney-at-law and mediating a legal case to an attorney-at-law. Thus, the two penal provisions are concurrently applicable to one act in the same Act, and it does not constitute a special agreement or commercial concurrence. This is not a new provision of Article 27 (1) which prohibits a comprehensive referral of a legal case against an attorney-at-law, and it is derived from an inappropriate legislation that does not consider the latter part of Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-law Act.

[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 (1) (see current Article 34 (1)), Article 90 subparagraph 2 (see current Article 109 subparagraph 1), Article 90 subparagraph 3 (see current Article 109 subparagraph 1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200), Article 37 of the Criminal Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do3697 delivered on June 15, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1702) / [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 (Gong1999, 2148) (Gong2000, 1222)

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor

Busan High Court Decision 98No693 delivered on May 10, 2000

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court. The prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1, 3, and 4 is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to Defendant 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that since an act of mediating a case to an attorney-at-law and receiving money and other valuables from such attorney-at-law is separately punished under Article 90 subparagraph 3 and Article 27 (1) of the former Attorney-at-law Act (amended by Act No. 6207 of Jan. 28, 200, hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the provision "a person who mediates such act" under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Act refers to a person who mediates a non-legal person to handle legal affairs, such as acting as an attorney-at-law, and it does not include a expanded interpretation of the meaning that it does not include a person who mediates a lawyer to handle legal affairs, if he/she mediates a case to accept the case by introducing a legal case to an attorney-at-law who is his/

However, "Good offices" referred to in the latter part of Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Act refer to acts of mediating or facilitating the conclusion of delegation contracts, etc. with respect to legal cases or legal affairs bilaterally between a party to a legal case and the other party who deals with legal affairs, such as representation, etc., and therefore, in reality, no delegation contract, etc. is established. It includes not only a person who requests good offices for compensation but also a person who receives from the other party or both parties, and also a case where non-legal counsel mediates or mediates legal cases to other attorneys-at-law, as well as a case where he/she mediates or mediates legal cases to other attorneys-at-law. This legal principle is separate from that of an attorney-at-law under Article 90 subparagraph 3 and Article 27 (1) of the Act regarding acts of receiving money and valuables in return for mediating or receiving legal cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do3697, Jun. 15, 200).

Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant not guilty on the grounds that it does not fall under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Act as stated in its holding, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Act, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the grounds for appeal pointing

2. As to the defendant 1, 3, and 4

In addition, the court below acquitted Defendant 1, 3, and 4 of the facts charged in this case on the ground that they were punished under Article 90 subparag. 3 and Article 27(1) of the Act, but they cannot be punished under Article 90 subparag. 2 of the Act, as seen in the judgment as to Defendant 2. The court below acquitted Defendants 1, 3, and 4 of the facts charged in this case on the ground that they were in a

However, under the premise that Article 90 subparag. 2 of the Act should be interpreted as seen earlier, it is inevitable to view that Article 90 subparag. 2 and Articles 90 subparag. 3 and 27(1) of the Act can be applied concurrently to an act by a person who is not an attorney-at-law to receive money and valuables and to arrange a legal case to an attorney-at-law. Ultimately, two penal provisions exist in one act in the same Act, and such act does not constitute a special relationship or commercial competition relationship, and it does not constitute a special relationship or commercial competition relationship, and this shall be deemed an inappropriate legislation, even if part of the applicable scope overlaps with the latter part of Article 90 subparag. 2 of the Act, which comprehensively prohibits an attorney-at-law from arranging a legal case (see the above en banc Decision).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant 1, 3, and 4 on the ground that it erred by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Act, but as long as it is found guilty by applying Article 90 subparagraph 3 and Article 27 (1) of the Act with overlapping relation, such illegality does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is without merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 is reversed and remanded to the court below. The prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1, 3, and 4 is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)