logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1984. 5. 15. 선고 84도176 판결
[변호사법위반][공1984.7.15.(732),1167]
Main Issues

Whether or not Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Law No. 2654, Dec. 20, 1973) is violated or not to borrow money with the statement that it is necessary for the release negotiation cost of a detained person.

Summary of Judgment

In the construction work executed by the non-indicted (B) who was detained in the course of occupational breach of trust, the release of the defendant was reduced due to his interest, and thus, it is recognized that the non-indicted (A) borrowed money to the non-indicted (B) for the cost of release negotiation under the above (B), and if not, it does not constitute a violation of Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Act No. 2654 of Dec. 20, 1973).

[Reference Provisions]

Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Law No. 2654, Dec. 20, 1973)

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Daejeon District Court Decision 83No694 delivered on October 26, 1983

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence in its reasoning, the judgment of the court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant borrowed the defendant's charge of violation of Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Act No. 2654 of Dec. 20, 1973) since he merely borrowed the defendant's charge of violation of Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Act No. 2654 of Dec. 20, 1973) since he did not prove the fact-finding and decision of the court below, and there is no proof of the facts-finding and decision of the court below in light of the records, and there is no error of facts against the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law, since the defendant had an interest in the construction work executed by Non-Party 2, who was forced to release him from a new disease of non-indicted 2, who was detained by the crime of occupational breach of trust.

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow