[1] Whether the act of a non-legal practitioner prohibited by Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act is limited to "legal affairs that can be performed by a non-legal practitioner" (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in holding that the act of a police officer to receive money and valuables constitutes a violation of Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, although the police officer's investigation of victims, voluntary movement of suspects to the district and transfer the case to the police station is merely an act of his duties and does not constitute legal affairs that can be performed by an attorney-at-law

[1] Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008) / [2] Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do2340 Decided August 21, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2361) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1039 Decided February 28, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4482 Decided October 15, 2009

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Tae-young

Changwon District Court Decision 2009No1854 decided January 28, 2010

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

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the court below, it is just to determine that the facts charged in this case are recognized on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or the principle of trial of evidence, or there is no error

2. Ex officio determination

Considering the legislative purport of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008) to prohibit a person, other than an attorney-at-law, from handling legal affairs, and the text and text of the above provision, it is reasonable to interpret that the act of a non-legal practitioner prohibited under the above provision is limited to the legal affairs that he/she can perform.

In this case, apart from the fact that there is room for the defendant who was a police officer belonging to the district forces to investigate victims on or around December 2006 and voluntarily move the suspect to the police station and then transfer the case to the district police station on or after the abuse of authority or the receipt of consideration, the defendant's act can be deemed as an act of business and does not constitute legal affairs that can be conducted by the attorney-at-law. Thus, it cannot be punished as a violation of Article 109 (1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that this part of the facts charged constitutes a violation of Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the concept of legal affairs prohibited in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act of December 2006 should be reversed. Since the above crime is concurrent crimes with the remaining convictions against the defendant under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment shall be imposed on the whole. Thus, the judgment below is reversed in its entirety and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)