Whether a person qualified as a lawyer can be the subject of a violation of Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 3594 of Dec. 31, 1982)

Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 3594 of Dec. 31, 1982) provides that a person who is qualified as an attorney may be the subject of the violation, so long as he/she receives money on the pretext of solicitation or mediation for a case or affairs handled by a public official, not in connection with the delegation of a litigation case, so long as he/she receives money for solicitation

Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 3594 of Dec. 31, 1982); Article 78 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do3202 Delivered on February 14, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No530 delivered on November 25, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence of the first instance court affirmed by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed the crime such as the first instance trial in collusion with the non-indicted, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or rules of evidence. In addition, since the violation of Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 3594 of Dec. 31, 1982) can be an agent even if he is qualified as an attorney, the court below's decision that the above attorney-at-law is subject to the attorney-at-law as long as the court below received money as a solicitation or an intermediary for the case or affairs handled by a public official, not in connection with the delegation of a litigation case, and there is no reason to argue that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)