Whether Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is violated in cases where part of money and valuables received as a request or good offices are consumed for the expenses of solicitation or good offices (affirmative)

When a public official receives, promises to receive money, valuables or other benefits under the pretext of solicitation or mediation in connection with cases or affairs handled by a public official, or gives, promises to give, or promises to give, such money or valuables to a third party, a violation of Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act shall be established, and even if he/she partly consumes money or valuables for solicitation or mediation, it shall not affect the establishment of

Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do795 Decided September 5, 1967, 71Do1848 Decided December 24, 1971, Supreme Court Decision 76Do391 Decided December 14, 1976

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No4418 delivered on September 22, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are also examined.

In a case where a public official receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, or promises to give or promise to give them to a third party, the crime of violation of Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is established if he receives or promises to receive the above money, etc. In this case, the crime is established if he receives or promises to receive it, and even if he partly consumed it with the expenses of solicitation or mediation, it does not affect the establishment of the crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 76Do391, Dec. 14, 197; 67Do795, Sept. 5, 1967). Accordingly, it is not possible to establish the crime of bribery or the crime of delivery of evidence in such a case. Accordingly, the first instance judgment maintained by the court below to the same purport is legitimate evidence, and it cannot be concluded that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's criminal investigation office, which is a public official, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant's complaint or the crime of delivery of evidence under investigation under the name of the same public official.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)