Article 5 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "a person who is sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment"

The meaning of "a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment" in Article 5 (2) and Article 10 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act includes not only the sentence but also the case where a suspended sentence is sentenced.

Article 5 Article 10 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Law No. 1154 of September 24, 1962) Article 62 of the Criminal Code

Supreme Court Decision 4292Ma563 delivered on May 18, 1960 (Supreme Court Decision 5825Da1261 delivered on May 18, 196)

Supreme Court Decision 68Do720 delivered on July 2, 1968 (Daad 3466, Supreme Court Decision 16Do1261 delivered on July 2, 196 (No. 62(4)1261)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Minister of Justice

November 10, 1970

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke an administrative disposition revoking the registration of the attorney-at-law registry No. 1085 against the plaintiff as of May 7, 1970 by the defendant 813.3-4509.

The cost of lawsuit is assessed against the defendant.

On May 7, 1970, the fact that the defendant made a disposition against the plaintiff on May 7, 1970, as stated in the purport of the claim, and that the plaintiff reached the principal lawsuit within a legitimate period after going through the prescribed source procedure.

On July 30, 1968, the plaintiff appealed for a suspended sentence of 1 year and 6 months at the Seoul District Criminal Court, and the plaintiff believed that the opening of the appeal would not interfere with the plaintiff's business, and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed at the Seoul High Court on November 27, 1969, and the decision became final and conclusive on the ground that the plaintiff did not raise any appeal, and the defendant did not have any objection to the registration of the plaintiff's attorney-at-law in accordance with Article 5 (2) of the Attorney-at-law Act and Article 10 (2) of the same Act. However, according to the above suspended sentence of 1 year and 2 years, the plaintiff's appeal was issued to the above Seoul District Court for more than 1 year and 3 years, and the defendant did not have any objection to the above suspended sentence of 1 year and 3 years after the date of the above suspended sentence, and thus, the defendant's appeal and the defendant did not have any objection to the above suspended sentence of 2 years and its purport.

Therefore, with regard to whether the plaintiff's penal punishment constitutes a person sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier under Article 5 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 10 (2) of the same Act, the current Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea provides that the execution of the sentence may be suspended for a period of not less than one year but not more than five years if there are reasons to consider the situation in light of Article 51 of the Act in the case where a sentence is to be imposed with imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than three years, and that the sentence may be suspended for not more than three years if there are reasons to consider the situation in the case where a sentence is to be imposed with imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than three years. Thus, it can be known that only the execution of the sentence may be suspended, and that the plaintiff's request for suspension of the execution of the sentence shall be postponed for a fixed period of time, but it shall not be viewed that the defendant's request for suspension of the execution of the sentence constitutes a person sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than 2 years as seen above.

Judges Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Judge)