A. Whether an attorney's act of disclosing a counter-espionage case, investigation of a counter-espionage case, and court records to the members of foreign diplomatic missions in Korea constitutes an act detrimental to the attorney's dignity (affirmative);

(b) Validity of acting for the chairperson of the Attorney Disciplinary Committee by designation of the Minister of Justice;

A. After the re-appellant, who is an attorney-at-law, accepted the case of violation of the National Security Act of the counter-espionage, he violated the Foreign Exchange Control Act by receiving 1,00,000 more of the total sum of 1,000 U.S. dollars which the wife of the above counter-espionage residing in Japan sent three times as remuneration for the above case, and exchanging 7,00,000 U.S. among them through US dollarss in Seoul. For four times, 65,000 won shall be raised by the court staff, and delivered to the above counter-espionage members upon receipt of a copy of the judgment, protocol of trial, etc. on the above counter-espionage, and then, after inspecting the criminal records of the above counter-espionage, it should be notified to the staff of the Japanese Embassy by arbitrarily writing the evidence seizure protocol, thereby impairing the dignity of the attorney-at-law.

B. The chairman of the Attorney Disciplinary Committee under the Attorney-at-Law Act is the Minister of Justice, and the provisions of Article 5 of the Prosecutor Disciplinary Act are applied mutatis mutandis by Article 77 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and it is legitimate that a member of the Committee act for the chairman by designation of the Minister of Justice, and the decision of

(a) Articles 72 and 77 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 2 subparagraph 3(b) of the Public Prosecutor Disciplinary Act, Article 77 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 5 of the Public Prosecutor Disciplinary Act;

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Disciplinary Committee Order 10 dated May 25, 1983

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the facts established by the Attorney Disciplinary Committee on the Re-Appellants, the Re-Appellants violated the National Security Act against Non-Party 1 (the death penalty finalized February 22, 1983) on June 1981 and notified the non-party 1 to the above non-party 2's employees of the Seoul Jongno-gu Office that he received the total sum of 1,000,000 U.S. dollars sent by Non-Party 2 from Non-Party 1 to Non-Party 1's employees in Japan and received the payment of foreign currency from Non-Party 1 and then received it from Non-Party 70,000 U.S. dollars from Non-Party 1 to Non-Party 1's employees in violation of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act by taking account of the fact-finding process of Non-Party 1's violation of the Act against Non-Party 1's dignity and the records pertaining to Non-Party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's criminal investigation organization'.

2. Article 5 of the Public Prosecutor Disciplinary Act provides that the Minister of Justice shall apply mutatis mutandis to disciplinary action against a lawyer, except as otherwise provided for in the same Act with regard to disciplinary action against a lawyer. Thus, it is legitimate that a member of the same disciplinary committee, who is a member of the committee, may act on behalf of a member of the committee, based on the designation of the Minister of Justice, for the designation of the Minister of Justice. The decision of the committee is invalid because there is no legal ground for acting on behalf of the chairman of the committee, and the decision of the committee is without merit. According to the decision of the lawyer disciplinary committee of May 25, 1983 (No. 10) against the re-appellant, two judges commissioned other than the above chairman as a member of the committee, two public prosecutors and two members of the committee shall be excluded from disciplinary action against a public prosecutor or two members of the Korean Bar Association. Thus, if a request for disciplinary action by the Prosecutor General is commenced, the decision of the committee does not constitute a disciplinary action against a public prosecutor or two members of the Korean Bar Association.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)