(a) Whether an act of an adjuster entrusted with damage adjusting services by the victims of a traffic accident to take part in contact with an insurance company on behalf of such victims, compromise between a victim and an insurance company and receive part of the agreed amount as a commission falls under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at

B. The meaning of "in the event of an act" under Article 1 (1) of the Criminal Code

A. Where an insurance company contacts with a traffic accident victims who have delegated damage adjusting services to compromise factors such as the victim's ratio of fault and amount of income, etc., and the amount of presentation by the insurance company does not coincide with that of the victim, inducing the victims to reach an agreement by acquiring opinions from the victims to receive the amount of presentation by the insurance company, furthermore, participating in the settlement between the traffic accident victims and the insurance company, such as participating in the agreement process, and receiving 10% of the amount of agreement received by the victim as fees from the insurance company constitutes handling affairs concerning the settlement of general legal cases under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law

(b) The establishment and punishment of a crime means the time when the crime has been committed in accordance with the law at the time of the act;

(a) Subparagraph 2 of Article 90 of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

B. Supreme Court en banc Decision 86Do1012 Decided July 22, 1986 (Gong1986, 1152)

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 93No3286 delivered on January 28, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant, not an attorney-at-law, was in violation of Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-law Act at the time of the enforcement of the current Attorney-at-law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of March 10, 1993), from March 15, 1993 to May 12 of the same year, in the course of damage adjustment service, in contact with the traffic accident victims who delegated the damage adjustment service to the defendant over 12 times in the course of damage adjustment service, and informed them about the factors such as the victim's rate of negligence, income amount, etc., and in the case where the situation amount and the amount presented by the insurance company are not in accord, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the damage adjustment service or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the rules of evidence set forth in Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-law Act.

2. The penal provisions of Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act are the provisions regulating the handling of legal affairs by a person who is not an attorney-at-law, and the above provision cannot be deemed as being unconstitutional against the right of equality (Article 11) or the freedom of occupation (Article 15), or the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation legislation. In addition, it cannot be said that there is a case where it is necessary for an adjuster to clarify the grounds for the contents of a damage adjustment report at the request of an insurance company and present his opinion on the validity of the damage adjustment report in the course of performing damage adjustment business, and there is a case where it is necessary for an adjuster to do so.

3. In addition, the establishment of a crime and punishment are governed by the law at the time of the act (Article 1 (1) of the Criminal Act). Since "the time of the act" refers to the time of the completion of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1012, Jul. 22, 1986). Thus, the court below's decision that determined the defendant as the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act cannot be said to be erroneous if the act of participating in a contract for the settlement of general legal cases and the act of participating in the settlement was completed after the amendment of the Attorney-at-Law Act on Mar. 10, 1993.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)