Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (affirmative)

Article 78 Item 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act does not necessarily mean a legal representative performing a lawsuit under the name of an attorney with delegation of a lawsuit, but also includes cases where a person other than an attorney-at-law handles a litigation case under his/her own name on behalf of the party concerned. Thus, if a person other than an attorney-at-law agrees to pay for the party, prepares various litigation documents, such as a complaint, preparatory documents, evidence application, etc. on behalf of the party concerned, and accompany the party concerned to receive them at the court, and acts as a proxy necessary for the institution of a lawsuit and execution of a lawsuit by directly receiving various documents sent by the court while identifying the progress of the lawsuit in court, such series of acts constitute a

Subparagraph 2 of Article 78 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 89No3973 delivered on December 14, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant can be found to be guilty of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the calculation of additional collection charges is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out. The representation in the litigation case under Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act does not necessarily mean only a proxy who performs the litigation under the name of the attorney-at-law with the delegation of the litigation, but also includes a case where a person other than a lawyer handles the litigation case under the name of the attorney-at-law on behalf of the principal on behalf of the principal. As determined by the court below, the defendant, even though he is not a lawyer, prepares various litigation documents, such as a complaint, preparation of legal brief, evidence application, etc., and sent them to the court while identifying the progress of the lawsuit and sending them to the court, which constitutes a violation of Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act. The judgment below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)