The case holding that a manager is the most recent violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

The fact that there is a lawyer's office member and registered as a manager of three companies is limited to one room for the company to manage the attorney-at-law law in a timely manner so that those who are not attorneys-at-law may handle the case of the company. Thus, the so-called "the above-called" constitutes a violation of the Attorney-at-law Act which enables the managers of each company to manage the case.

Articles 48 and 55 of the Attorney-at-Law Act; Articles 10 and 11 of the Commercial Act

Defendant

Attorney after Completion of Law

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 78No3377 delivered on July 12, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal and grounds of appeal on the supplement of counsel included therein are examined.

If the public evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below is compared to the records, if the defendant is an attorney-at-law and registered as a manager of three companies in which the defendant is an attorney-at-law, not as a so-called commercial employee who will assist the external business activities of the company and subordinate to the defendant, and it can be recognized that this was limited to one room for the attorney-at-law to fully follow the Attorney-at-law Act to allow the defendant, who is not an attorney-at-law, to take charge of the litigation of the company, and therefore, the court below is just in maintaining the facts of recognition of the court of first instance that the defendant is the person in charge of each company, and therefore, it cannot be argued that the court below erred in the contents and value determination of the evidence or found facts based on the evidence which the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Attorney-at-Law Act, and there is no violation of the attorney-at-law Act, based on the above facts of recognition.

In addition, as long as the facts are stated above, it cannot be said that the so-called defendant's case constitutes a case where the so-called "legal mistake" under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment below rejecting the defendant's assertion on this point cannot be said to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to errors

Therefore, this appeal is groundless and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)