[1] The meaning of "agent" under Item 1 of Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[2] The case holding that the act of substantially representing all procedures necessary for the filing and execution of the case for the client by accepting the case of individual rehabilitation application or the case of application for immunity by receiving a certain amount of fees per case from the client constitutes an act of dealing with legal affairs under Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act for the client

[3] The case holding that the act of using part of the certified judicial scrivener office and receiving fees under the name of the certified judicial scrivener shall be recognized as a co-principal of a violation of Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law

[1] Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act / [2] Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act / [3] Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do2193 delivered on December 24, 199 (Gong2000Sang, 349) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do790 Delivered on April 13, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1182) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6976 Delivered on March 26, 2002 (Gong2002Do2725 Delivered on November 13, 2002) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4354 Delivered on June 14, 2007

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants

Attorneys Han-tae et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 2006No366 Decided June 8, 2006

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (if the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed by Defendant 1, to the extent of supplement).

1. In light of the purport of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act that intends to maintain the lawyer system by prohibiting a person, other than an attorney-at-law, from participating in the handling of legal affairs, the term "agent" under the above Article includes not only the legal representative dealing with legal affairs under the name of his/her agent, but also the cases where not only the agent performs acts necessary to use legal knowledge on behalf of his/her agent, or takes the lead of the handling of cases on behalf of himself/herself with no legal knowledge or without the external form and takes the lead of the handling of cases on behalf of himself/herself (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2193, Dec. 24, 199; 2002Do2725, Nov. 13, 2002).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that defendant 2, 3, and 4 accepted a certain case of application for individual rehabilitation or application for immunity from clients, and actually acted on behalf of clients for the handling of the case, and actually acted on behalf of clients for all procedures necessary for the application and execution of the case. The court below determined that such acts of the above defendants exceeded the scope of a certified judicial scrivener's duties and constitutes an act of dealing with legal affairs provided for in Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act. In light of the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below and the above legal principles, the court below's fact-finding and determination are just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, the scope of a certified judicial scrivener's duties

2. Examining the evidence adopted by the court below and the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the relevant legal principles, it is just that the court below punished Defendant 1 and 5 as co-principal of a violation of Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act on the ground that he conspired Defendant 1 and 5 to handle the above legal affairs with Defendant 2, 3, and 4, and used them as part of his certified judicial scrivener office and a certified judicial scrivener's name, and received 30% out of the amount of KRW 300,000 to KRW 40,000,000, or 400, which he accepted from them in return, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to co-principal as argued in the Grounds for Appeal

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)