A. Whether "cases or affairs dealt with by public officials" under Article 78 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act includes cases or affairs for the defendant himself/herself

(negative)

(b) The case holding that if one of the victims who closed the Kim Construction Business and was elected as the representative for the payment of compensation for losses and received money by agreement from the other victims, it cannot be deemed that he received money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation for the affairs handled by the public officials under the Attorney-at-Law Act;

(a) The case or affairs handled by a public official under Article 78 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act shall mean the case or affairs for others, and shall not correspond to those for the defendant himself;

(b) The case holding that it cannot be deemed that money and valuables have been received under the pretext of solicitation for the affairs handled by the public officials prescribed by the Attorney-at-Law Act, where one of the victims who closed the Kim Construction Business was elected as the representative for the affairs of payment of compensation for losses and received money by agreement from the other victims.

Subparagraph 1 of Article 78 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Do1113 delivered on December 23, 1986 (Gong1987, 270) 91Do416 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1562) 92Do2904 delivered on February 26, 1993 (Gong193, 1120)

A

A co-inspector;

Incheon District Court Decision 92No232 delivered on August 20, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Article 78 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act refers to cases or affairs for others and does not correspond to those for others (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do113, Dec. 23, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 91Do416, Apr. 23, 1991).

As to the facts of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act that the defendant was found guilty of the above non-indicted 1,50,000 won in total for the above non-indicted 3's work of the above non-indicted 4's work site development assistance, the court below decided that the defendant was not guilty of the above non-indicted 1,000 won for the above non-indicted 8's work of the above non-indicted 1,500 won. The non-indicted 3, C, D, E, and F are not guilty of the above facts of violation of the rules of evidence, and the defendant was not guilty of the above non-indicted 1,000 won for the above non-indicted 3's work of the above non-indicted 1,000 won for the above non-indicted 8's work of the above non-indicted 1,000 won for the above non-indicted 3's work, the court below decided that the above non-indicted 1,000 won for the above non-indicted 3's work of this case.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)