Whether it falls under Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (affirmative) where a public official uses money received as a request for appointment of a lawyer for a fee (affirmative)

As long as the defendant has received money from a victim as a solicitation for public officials, it shall be subject to the penal provisions under Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act even if he actually used the money for the appointment of a lawyer.

Subparagraph 1 of Article 78 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Zwon et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 88No401 delivered on February 24, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal (including grounds of supplementary appeal) are examined.

Examining the evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below based on the records, there is no error of law that misleads the defendant as an evidence preparation in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the plaintiff's assertion in the process of fact-finding.

According to the records, among the facts of each of the crimes of this case of this case of the defendant, 10,00,000 won on March 9, 1987 and 30,000,000,000 won on July 17, 198, which the defendant received from the victim's deposits in the bank account unit of flowing water with the non-indicted Kim Jong-hwan's advance payment, as in the lawsuit, but it is recognized that the above Kim Jong-hwan received the above money from the victim in the defendant's heart name and deposited the above money in the bank unit of flowing water, and the defendant used the above money as expenses for appointing the attorney's expense without the victim's permission (see investigation records 238, 240,000,000 won on March 9, 1987, and 40,000,000 won on July 17, 200).

Therefore, even if the defendant did not receive the above money directly from the victim, it shall be deemed that he received it through the above Kim Jong-hwan, and even if the defendant actually used it for the attorney-at-law's fee, even if he received the money from the victim as a solicitation for public officials, it constitutes a penal provision under Article 78 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act. Thus, there is no reason to argue that the above money is attributable to the judgment of the court below on the premise that the above money was paid directly from the victim as the cost of appointing the

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)