[1] In a case where a person, other than an attorney-at-law, is in fact an auction bid and receives money under the pretext of fees, whether it constitutes "agent" for legal affairs under Article 109 (1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (affirmative), and the relationship between a violation of Article 109 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act and a violation of Article

[2] The case holding that Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act is established in a case where a certified judicial scrivener is in a position of a certified judicial scrivener, but actually agrees to act as an agent for an auction under his own responsibility and accounting without being supervised and supervised by a certified judicial scrivener and to receive money in the name of his own responsibility

[1] According to Article 109 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008), where a person who is not an attorney-at-law participates in all auction process for those who desire to award real estate at auction and actually receives money under the pretext of fees, it constitutes a "agent for legal affairs under Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act". Meanwhile, Articles 74 (1) 1, 3 (1), and 2 (1) 5 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act provide that "where a person who is not a certified judicial scrivener as a business of a certified judicial scrivener acts as an agent in an auction case, etc. under the Civil Execution Act, and is punished in violation thereof, it does not exclude the application of Article 109 of the above Attorney-at-law Act to an act of acting for a certified judicial scrivener.

[2] The case holding that Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008) is established in case where, in the form of a position of a certified judicial scrivener, a certified judicial scrivener is in fact in a position, he/she actually represents the auction bidding under his/her own responsibility and accounting without being supervised and supervised by a certified judicial scrivener, and is agreed to receive money in the name

[1] Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008), Article 2 (1) 5, Article 3 (1), and Article 74 (1) 1 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act / [2] Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of March 28, 2008), Article 2 (1) 5, Article 3 (1), and Article 74 (1) 1 of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do790 Decided April 13, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1182), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2725 Decided November 13, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 125) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4356 Decided June 28, 2007 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6976 Decided March 26, 2002

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2007No61 Decided April 24, 2007

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 109 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Attorney-at-Law Act") provides that "a person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, or may be punished concurrently." Paragraph 1 provides that "a person who is not an attorney-at-law shall receive or promise to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, or shall give or promise to give such things to a third party, and shall not be punished by a person who is not an attorney-at-law at-law at-law at-law at-law at-law 1, 200, a request for mediation of litigation cases, litigation cases, administrative appeal or examination to other administrative agencies, a request for investigation cases handled by an investigative agency or other legal cases handled by an investigative agency under the Acts and subordinate statutes, and a person who is not an attorney-at-law at-law at-law 2, 10.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below based on the above legal principles and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its judgment, and judged that although the defendant was in the position of non-indicted 1's secretary in form, he actually participated in almost all auction process for the non-indicted 2 who wishes to award the real estate subject to auction under his own responsibility and its own account without the instruction and supervision of non-indicted 1, the court below decided that the defendant committed a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act under Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act against the defendant, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the Attorney-at-Law or the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act

2. The Defendant’s remaining grounds of appeal and the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal are all erroneous as to the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and they do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)