2015 Highest6797 Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Lighting○○ (8100 - 100), A secretary;

Seoul residential Seocho-gu

Jeonbuk-si, Magsan

2. Kim○-○ (7100 - 100 - 100), Attorneys-at-law

Seoul residential Seocho-gu

Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

이ㅇㅇ ( 기소 ) , 김ㅇㅇ ( 공판 )

법무법인 ( 유한 ) 동인 담당 변호사 임○○ , 윤ㅇㅇ ( 피고인 조OO

for purposes of this section)

Law Firm Hong,000 (private ships for defendant Kim ○)

February 16, 2016

Defendant 1 and six months of imprisonment, and Defendant Kim ○, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment against the defendant Kim ○ for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Additional collection of KRW 411, 003, 010, and KRW 140, 590, and 000 from Defendant Cho○○○○, respectively.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant’s protocol

No person, other than an attorney-at-law, shall handle legal affairs, such as representation, legal counseling or preparation of legal documents with respect to non-contentious cases, in return for receiving or promising to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, around January 7, 2014, consulted ○○○○○○○, which was found for the application for individual rehabilitation, and agreed to handle the case and agreed to receive a fee of KRW 1,50,000,000,000 from the Defendant around January 7, 2014, and dealt with legal affairs concerning non-contentious cases by preparing documents necessary for the application for individual rehabilitation and submitting them to the Seoul Central District Court in the name of the above Kim○○, as described in the attached list of crimes, from around January 7, 2014 to September 4, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant was not an attorney-at-law and dealt with the rate of law on non-contentious cases such as individual rehabilitation.

2. Defendant Kim-○

The Defendant, as an attorney-at-law belonging to ○○○○ Law Firm on January 7, 2014, the Defendant used the Defendant’s attorney-at-law from January 7, 2014 to September 4, 2015, using the Defendant’s attorney-at-law’s name, and received a total of KRW 8770,1450,000 and handled the case, such as personal rehabilitation of 479 cases, as described in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement by the prosecution against ○○○;

1. A report on the attachment of a detailed statement of acceptance of cases of personal rehabilitation, bankruptcy, and immunity by the suspect ○○○;

1. Details of deposit into the OO account of cash withdrawn from the account under the name of ○○○; Lone Star Partners;

Details of transfers from loans to law firm ○○;

1. A report on investigation (payment of rent paid by the suspect ○○○○ in return for the name lending to Kim○-law;

Details attached)

1. A report on investigation (a report on calculation of an amount additionally collected);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Defendant Cho ○: Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

Defendant ○○: Article 109 subparag. 2 and Article 34(3) of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant Cho-○: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant ○○: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendants: the latter part of Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[Defendant Cho ○ and his defense counsel asserted that the amount deducted from the amount of profit earned by the defendant should be collected as an additional collection against the defendant. However, in the event that money and valuables are acquired through a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, if the expenses are not incidental expenses paid in order to acquire the money and valuables, the above expenses cannot be deducted from the value of the money and valuables (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6944, Oct. 9, 2008, etc.). Thus, even if considerable amount of money was paid with the wages of employees, four major premiums, retirement pension, post office expenses, etc. related to this case, it is nothing more than the expenses paid to acquire the money and valuables through the crime of this case. Accordingly, this part of the assertion is not accepted.)

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant’s assistance ○

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

Type 5 (not less than KRW 100,000) increase area (not less than KRW 200,000)

From 7 years to 7 years)

* descriptive criteria: Alongling results of the same competition, at least two stages of increase in the type;

[Person under Special Leave]

Where a large number of clients have committed a crime repeatedly or systematically or have committed a business;

【Determination of Sentence】

One year and six months: Imprisonment with prison labor: It is inevitable to impose a sentence on the person because the amount of profit which he has accepted is large and small. The crime of this case is recognized and reflected, the person who has no same kind of power, and the person who has a similar case shall leave the sentencing criteria and determine the period of punishment as ordered.

2. Defendant Kim-○

It is so decided as per Disposition in consideration of the fact that a higher ethical awareness is required as an attorney requiring verification, the size of profit gained by the name lending, the equity with the same and similar cases.

Judges Hong-eng