The case holding that since the nature of a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the means and methods of crime are similar to fraud, it is similar to that of fraud.

If a person who requested a judge or a prosecutor to commit a crime of special larceny was sentenced to a sentence of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the fact that he/she received money under the pretext of teaching expenses by requesting a judge or a prosecutor so that the non-indicted who is being investigated for special larceny is not detained, it is reasonable to view the name of the crime as a crime similar to that of fraud under the Social Protection Act, even though the name of the crime is a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

Articles 5 and 6 of the Social Protection Act

Defendant and Appellant for Saryary Employment

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Im Jong-tae

Seoul High Court Decision 84No1744,84No282 delivered on December 4, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. We review the record and accept the criminal facts in the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance, and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit in the evidence cooking in the process. The theory of lawsuit that points out this issue is groundless.

2. According to the certified copy of the judgment of the court of first instance rendered on December 22, 1980 by the court of first instance, the applicant for protection against the crime of special larceny was sentenced to one-year imprisonment for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act on the ground that the non-indicted 1 et al. was investigated into a special larceny charge, and the non-indicted 2 et al. was ordered not to be detained by the non-indicted 3 et al. by requesting the prosecutor or the judge for the investigation of the special larceny charge. It is obvious that the defendant was sentenced to one-year imprisonment for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. Although the name of the crime was against the Attorney-at-Law Act, it is similar to the nature of the crime, the means and method of the crime, so if the sum of the term of imprisonment with prison labor sentenced by other frauds, five years and four months will be more than three years after the expiration of the term of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of fraud, and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner for protection against the record was justified.

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)