Whether Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act is violated where the money received as a solicitation item is returned after being returned.

As long as a public official receives money once he/she received money for solicitation on his/her affairs, he/she shall not have any charge for the establishment of the crime of receiving money and valuables under Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act even if he/she returned money thereafter.

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

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 83No279 delivered on May 6, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 2654, Dec. 20, 1973) is established when the defendant receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, or promises to give or offer it to a third party on the pretext of soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by a public official. Thus, if the defendant received or promises to give it to a third party on the pretext of solicitation as to affairs handled by a public official, such as the judgment of the court of first instance, once he received or promises to give one million won on the pretext of solicitation, he/she shall not have a complaint for the establishment of the crime even if he/she returned the money thereafter. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first and second instance with this purport is just and it is obvious that the sentencing of the sentence of the court of second instance is not a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)