[1] The meaning of "agent" under Article 78 (2) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 90 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[2] The case holding that the act of requesting the postponement or withdrawal of the date of the auction case constitutes an act of representation under Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act

[1] Article 78 subparagraph 2 (b) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of Mar. 10, 193), and Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the current Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of Mar. 10, 199), the term "agent" as an act of dealing with a case on behalf of the principal as an act of dealing with a case on behalf of the principal, which includes a factual act as to a dispute settlement, is not necessarily identical to that of the case in civil and criminal litigation, but is not necessarily identical to that of the case.

[2] The case holding that the act of requesting the postponement or withdrawal of the date of the auction case and submitting a written withdrawal of the request for auction on behalf of the victim constitutes "agent" under Article 78 (2) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act

[1] Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of March 10, 1993), Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act / [2] Article 78 subparagraph 2 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of March 10, 193), Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Do3453 delivered on February 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1369)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeong Jong-chul

Daegu District Court Decision 94No1152 delivered on April 28, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the deadline are examined together as to supplement the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the defendant obtained a benefit as in Paragraph 1 of the judgment, requested postponement or withdrawal of the auction case for the execution of the right to collateral security against the real estate of this case on behalf of the victim, acted as an agent by submitting a written withdrawal of a request for auction, etc., and embezzled money of KRW 55,00,00 as in Paragraph 2 of the judgment without the victim's consent or consent. In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence such as recognizing facts without any evidence. The grounds of appeal on this point are not acceptable.

2. Article 78 subparagraph 2 (b) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of Mar. 10, 193), and Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the current Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of Feb. 14, 1995) are all acts dealing with a case on behalf of the principal, which include a factual act pertaining to the settlement of dispute, and the scope of the concept is not necessarily the same as that of the case in civil and criminal litigations, but it should be deemed that there is a dispute or doubt as to legal rights and duties, or the general public in a case pertaining to the occurrence of a new relationship of rights and obligations, of which legal affairs are conducted for resolution of the dispute or discussion (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do3453 of Feb. 14,

Therefore, the court below's decision is justified in light of the above legal principles, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 78 (2) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The precedents pointed out in the ground of appeal are different from this case, and it cannot be an appropriate precedent in this case. The ground of appeal as to this point cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)