Whether a crime of violation of Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is established in the event that the co-offenders in the robbery in the robbery receive teaching expenses necessary for the minor handling of the case from the parent of other co-offenders (negative)

It does not constitute a crime of violation of Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, even if the case is not that of another person but that of all accomplices, including themselves, received the necessary teaching expenses from the parents of other accomplices.

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

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4486, Apr. 23, 1991) (Gong1991, 1562) and 73Do3154, Jul. 16, 1974

A

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 92No2834 delivered on October 9, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant committed the robbery resulting from robbery with the accomplices, such as the non-indicted B, C, and D in the judgment of the court below, and requested co-defendant E of the court of the court of first instance to request the investigative agency to take advantage of his or her own expenses so that he or she can easily handle the robbery resulting from robbery as a simple assault case, and provided entertainment and money at his or her own expense and received money and valuables from the parents of other accomplices as a teaching expense, and delivered them to the above E, and even if the defendant received the necessary teaching expenses from the parents of all the accomplices including himself or others as co-offenders, it is not related to the defendant, but because he or she did not constitute a violation of Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, even if he or she received the necessary teaching expenses from the parents of other accomplices, it is reasonable to determine that the defendant did not constitute a violation of Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and there is no reason to conclude that there is any error in the misapprehension of law.

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