Where a new law was enacted to amend the old law, applicable laws on the grounds that occurred at the time of the enforcement of the former law.

Even if the new law was enacted to revise the old law, unless there is a separate express provision, the revised and amended old law shall be applied as it is, unless there is a separate express provision.

Article 14 (1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Law No. 2654 of December 30, 1973)

Attorney Lee Young-chul, Attorney Lee Young-chul and resident

Attorney Disciplinary Committee (Law No. 6) dated May 25, 1983

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds for reappeal are examined.

1. As to the re-appellant's agent Lee Young-spa, No. 1 of the grounds for re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's ground (83.7.26) No. 1, 2, 3, 4

When collecting various data of the original decision, it can be sufficiently recognized that the original decision has been confirmed, and there is no error of finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence as argued in the arguments, and even if the so-called "Re-Appellant", which was confirmed by the original decision, constitutes a case where the duty to maintain dignity as an attorney-at-law under Article 14 (1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Law No. 2654, Dec. 30, 1973) is violated, there is no violation of the theory of lawsuit as to the fact that the original decision constitutes a case where the duty to maintain dignity as an attorney-at-law under Article 14 (1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act.

2. As to the re-appellant's agent, attorney Lee Young-con and the ground for re-appeal of presiding official

Even if the new law was enacted to revise the old law, unless there is a separate express provision, the revised old law should be applied as it is for the reason that occurred at the time of the enforcement of the old law.

However, since the current Attorney-at-Law Act was amended by the specialized law of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (No. 2654, Dec. 20, 1973), and it did not have any transitional provisions concerning the grounds for disciplinary action, the decision of the court below which determined that the illegality of this case committed at the time of the enforcement of the former Attorney-at-law Act constitutes grounds for disciplinary action falling under Article 14 (1) of the former Attorney-at-law Act is justifiable, and Article 2 (8) of the Enforcement Rule of the current Attorney-at-law Act cannot be viewed as a provision excluding the application of the former Act as to

3. As to the Re-Appellant's ground of reappeal (83.7.26) No. 5

Article 77 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that the Public Prosecutor Disciplinary Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to disciplinary action against a lawyer except as otherwise provided for in this Act, and Article 5 of the Public Prosecutor Disciplinary Act provides that a member designated by the Chairperson shall act on behalf of the Minister of Justice in the event of an accident. According to the records, the Minister of Justice, who is the Chairperson of the Attorney-at-Law Disciplinary Committee of this case, designates a member as a chairman acting on behalf of the Chairperson in the event of an accident, and accordingly, the composition of the disciplinary committee is lawful, and therefore, the composition of the disciplinary committee

4. As to the re-appellant's agent, attorney Lee Young-sub and ground of re-appeal No. 2

In light of all the circumstances revealed in the records of the original decision, the selection of the kind of disciplinary action or the determination thereof is not deemed to have seriously escaped from the scope of discretion. Therefore, the issue is groundless.

5. The reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju