The meaning of "to receive money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation or arrangement for cases or affairs handled by public officials" under Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and whether the whole amount of money and valuables has the nature of solicitation items in cases where the nature of solicitation items and the nature of the cost for simple labor or convenience provision are indivisible (affirmative)

Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Supreme Court Decision 97Do547 delivered on December 23, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 446) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3145 Delivered on September 24, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do771 Delivered on December 22, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do514 Delivered on April 29, 2005

A

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 2007No403 Decided March 30, 2007

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

1. Summary of the facts charged

On August 21, 2006, the Defendant: “C and D visited B who was arrested on the suspicion of scopon medication at the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office 914; “I shall enter the level of KRW 50,000,000,000, which shall be viewed as “I shall enter the level of KRW 50,000,000,000, which shall be seen as if I were to know the internal house and have been distributed to the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office 914”; and “I shall, upon request of the investigator, receive cash 2,00,000,000,000 won from C, D, and E from September 21, 2006, if I were sent to Busan District Prosecutors’ Office, I shall receive and have received money from the public official under the pretext of receiving and handling 2,500,000,000,000 won in total from C, C, F, and F.

2. The judgment of the court below

The court below, based on the evidence, found that B, upon the arrest of the Defendant on August 2006, arrested him as a charge of scopon medication and detained him, the Defendant informed the Defendant, who was interviewed with C and D of information about narcotics to the prosecution to the effect that he would be subject to investigation by undetained confinement, and requested the Defendant to the effect that he would have been able to receive investigation by undetained confinement. The Defendant was defective in putting public notice so that B may receive prior notice, and received a sum of KRW 25 million from C, etc. as stated in the above facts charged, including KRW 15 million among the above 25 million, and the Defendant transferred money to the so-called scopon medication through G for the purpose of remitting, the remaining public officials were released from the prosecutor's office or the Defendant could not be found guilty of having received money from the public prosecutor's office prior to the arrest of the Defendant for reasons that he could not receive money from the public prosecutor's office or the Defendant's office.

3. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act refers to cases where money and other valuables are received under the pretext of soliciting or arranging a case or affairs handled by a public official, in connection with a case or affairs handled by a public official, under the pretext of mediating between the public official and the client. It shall not include cases where money and other valuables are provided in connection with the case or affairs handled by a public official, and where money and other valuables are received in return for it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do547, Dec. 23, 1997; 2003Do3145, Sept. 24, 2004; 2003Do3145, Apr. 27, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the defendant was paid KRW 25 million to C et al. for the defendant's assistance in the prosecution, or 50 million to C et al. for the defendant's assistance of the prosecutor's assistance to the prosecutor's office, upon request from the investigator who is known to the prosecutor's office, and the defendant tried to inform the prosecutor's office of the persons who scam in a specific way to arrest them and to cooperate with the prosecutor's office, and received KRW 25 million as the expense for the defendant's assistance. In full view of the circumstances such as the circumstance where the defendant demanded scam and the defendant demanded scam for a large amount of KRW 5 million, the defendant received KRW 25 million as well as the actual expenses incurred in arresting the person who was known to the prosecutor's assistance, as well as the expenses incurred in arresting the person who was related to the prosecutor's assistance of the defendant, and the expenses incurred in arresting the person who was related to the defendant's assistance in the arrest of the person who committed the narcotics.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its holding. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the judgment. Therefore, the appeal pointing

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is 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 on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)