beta
Main Issues
Liability for a crime in which an attorney-at-law agrees to receive an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of the retainer fee, and his/her agent acts as an attorney;
Summary of Judgment
No. 2 of Article 78 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that a person, other than an attorney-at-law, who has agreed to receive an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of the retainers paid from a party to a lawsuit and mediates the representation of the case to an attorney-at-law and received the agreed amount, shall conflict with the act of the attorney-at-law. No. 2 of Article 78 of the Attorney-at-law Act, and even if the person who has arranged acts
[Reference Provisions]
Subparagraph 2 of Article 78 of the Attorney-at-Law Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 81Do2597 Decided April 27, 1982
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Defendant
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No3189,85No2855 decided July 9, 1986
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. An act of arranging an attorney-at-law by concluding an agreement to receive an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of the retainers that a person, other than an attorney-at-law, receives from a party to a lawsuit, and receives the agreed amount, shall be contrary to Article 78 subparag. 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do2597, Apr. 27, 1982). This act does not constitute either an attorney-at-law who has accepted an act of arranging a case by proxy, or a person who has received a supplementary payment for part of the attorney-at-law’s fees.
In the same purport, the judgment of the court below is just because the defendant's judgment was based on the ratio of violation of Article 78 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and there is no misapprehension of legal principles.
2. According to evidence, the court below found the defendant's non-criminal facts lawfully, and there is no error in the application of the law, and therefore, this issue is without merit.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)