The case holding that money and valuables are not received under the pretext of solicitation, etc. under Article 78 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act

If the victim of a traffic accident was paid a certain amount of money from the perpetrator by deceiving the perpetrator from driving under the influence of alcohol or by suggesting that the perpetrator be punished by a minor fine, it shall not be deemed to have received the said money in the name of solicitation with respect to the case handled by the public official, but it shall not be deemed to have received the said money as compensation for damage, and it shall not be deemed to have received the said money in the form of compensation for damage, and it shall be taken into consideration in light of the circumstances, and it shall not be deemed to have violated Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

Article 78 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee Jin-woo (Defendants)

Cheongju District Court Decision 85No141 delivered on October 11, 1985

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the defendants requested the police officers in charge of Non-Indicted 2 of the same person who was under investigation as a person suspected of a traffic accident during drinking driving at the Chungcheong Police Station, and demanded the teaching expenses under the pretext that he would not be subject to a minor fine after deducting the facts of driving under the influence of alcohol from being treated as undetained, and received a gold of KRW 1,00,000 from Non-Indicted 3, his father, and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that applied Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act to the above acts.

However, even after examining the evidence cited by the court of first instance based on the records, it is not found that the defendants handled the above money by making a request to the police officer in charge of drunk driving after deducting the above money. Rather, according to each statement of statement about Nonindicted 1 in the handling of affairs by judicial police officers and the preparation of prosecutor, it is the president of the taxi company that caused the above accident while driving by Nonindicted 2, and Defendant 2, as the president of the company that belongs to the other party to the above traffic accident, paid compensation for damages caused by the other party to the above traffic accident, he can be acknowledged that he received the above money as compensation for damages by suggesting that the above money should be treated as a minor fine, and the purport of Article 78 of the Attorney-at-law Act is to receive or promised to receive profits such as money and valuables from the act of receiving a request for a minor fine, etc. as well as to receive the above money and valuables from the above public official to receive or promised the above money and valuables at the time of the above solicitation.

Ultimately, the court below's decision on this issue is reasonable, because it recognizes facts without any evidence against the rules of evidence or maintains the first instance court's decision by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 78 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and thus it cannot be exempted from reversal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)