Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
A lawyer's lawful duties and the boundary of the intermediary-bribery offence
Supreme Court, Dec. 14, 2023, 2022Do163 (judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(알선수재)[은행장에게 펀드 재판매를 요청하고 그 대가로 금원을 지급받은 변호사의 행위가 특정경제범죄법상 알선수재에 해당하는지 여부가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes also punish a lawyer's lawful solicitation or intermediation performed in accordance with the mandate, and, for a lawyer formally retained in a legal case, is the offence of intermediary bribery established only where the receipt of money or other benefit can be assessed as having nothing to do with the lawyer's status and scope of duties?
Holding
No and yes. Reading Article 2 of the Attorneys-at-Law Act on the public character of the lawyer's status together with Article 3 on the comprehensiveness of the scope of duties, the Court held that Article 7 cannot be read as punishing a lawful solicitation or intermediary carried out in line with the mandate. For a lawyer formally retained in a legal case, the offence under Article 7 is established only where the money or other benefit was received, or a promise to receive it was made, on a name that can be assessed as unrelated to the lawyer's status and scope of duties, such as resorting to methods that cannot be regarded as normal activity of a public legal profession, entertainment for the sake of solving the case, provision of bribes, or the improper use of private connections or acquaintances.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이러한 변호사 지위의 공공성과 직무범위의 포괄성에 비추어 볼 때, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘특정경제범죄법’이라 한다) 제7조의 규정은 변호사가 그 위임의 취지에 따라 수행하는 적법한 청탁이나 알선행위까지 처벌대상으로 한 규정이라고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
In light of such public nature of the attorney's status and the comprehensiveness of the scope of duties, Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes") cannot be regarded as a provision that subjects to punishment even lawful solicitations or brokerage activities performed by an attorney in accordance with the intent of the retainer.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
금품 등의 수수의 명목이 변호사의 지위 및 직무범위와 무관하다고 평가할 수 있는 때에만 특정경제범죄법 제7조 위반죄가 성립한다.
Unofficial English translation
The offense of violating Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is established only when the receipt of money or valuables, etc. can be assessed as unrelated to the attorney's status and scope of duties.
Factors
- 변호사 지위의 공공성과 직무범위의 포괄성에 비추어 볼 때
- 정식으로 법률사건을 의뢰받은 변호사의 경우라면
- 공공성을 지닌 법률전문직으로서의 정상적인 활동이라고 보기 어려운 방법을 내세워
- 금품 등의 수수의 명목이 변호사의 지위 및 직무범위와 무관하다고 평가할 수 있는 때에만
Unofficial English translation
• In light of the public nature of the attorney's status and the comprehensiveness of the scope of duties
• In the case of an attorney who has been formally entrusted with a legal case
• by resorting to a method that can hardly be regarded as normal activity as a legal professional with a public nature
• only when the receipt of money or valuables, etc. can be assessed as unrelated to the attorney's status and scope of duties
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a lawyer who was not formally retained in a legal case receives money for conveying another's request, must the same rule be met before Article 7 applies?
A later decision applying Article 7 of the Act to a lawyer acting without a formal retainer would require this entry to be read again, as would an amendment to Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes or to Articles 2 and 3 of the Attorneys-at-Law Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a lawyer who was not formally retained in a legal case receives money for conveying another's request, must the same rule be met before Article 7 applies?” vs Independent “How should a payment covering both legitimate legal services and improper personal intercession be assessed?”
The primary asks whether the same rule applies to a lawyer not formally retained who takes money for conveying a request, while the independent reading asks how a payment mixing legitimate legal work with improper intercession should be characterised.
이러한 변호사 지위의 공공성과 직무범위의 포괄성에 비추어 볼 때, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘특정경제범죄법’이라 한다) 제7조의 규정은 변호사가 그 위임의 취지에 따라 수행하는 적법한 청탁이나 알선행위까지 처벌대상으로 한 규정이라고 볼 수 없다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 15 December 2021 (2021No818), reversed the first-instance judgment convicting the defendant and found the charge not made out. It held that the defendant lawyer, retained by Company A in its dispute with Bank B over whether a fund would be resold, met the Bank B president to explain the fund situation, convey Company A's position that the promised fund resale be carried out and persuade the other side, which is a lawful legal service of urging performance of a promise or negotiating for the settlement of a dispute, and that the evidence submitted by the prosecution alone was not enough to conclude that the money he received from his client was unrelated to his status and scope of duties as a lawyer, or that he received it on the name of soliciting or intermediating by wholly making improper use of his personal acquaintance with the Bank B president.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in that reading. Checking the appellate reasons against the applicable law and the record, it held that the court below had not breached the rules of logic and experience or strayed beyond the free evaluation of evidence, and had not misapprehended the law on the intermediary bribery offence under Article 7 or on a lawyer's lawful scope of duties, so as to affect the judgment. It dismissed the appeal, with the agreement of all participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A lawyer who was not formally retained in a legal case, since the rule is stated for a lawyer who was.
- Money or an undertaking to receive it given on the name of entertainment for the case, provision of bribes, or the improper use of private connections or acquaintances, where it can be assessed as unrelated to the lawyer's status and scope of duties.
- A recipient who is not a lawyer, since the rule turns on the public character of the lawyer's status and the scope of the lawyer's duties under Articles 2 and 3 of the Attorneys-at-Law Act.
Record verification notes
Establish first whether the mandate was a formal retainer in a legal case, since the whole test is stated for that lawyer. Then take the payment apart: what name was it given on, what was asked of the financial company's staff, and what in the file shows that the request was made by methods beneath the normal activity of a legal professional, such as hospitality, provision of bribes or the improper use of private connections. Finally, weigh the prosecution's evidence on each point, since the court below held on this record that it fell short.
From the official text
Points at issue
특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제7조는 변호사가 위임의 취지에 따라 수행하는 적법한 청탁이나 알선행위까지 처벌대상으로 한 규정인지 여부(소극) / 정식으로 법률사건을 의뢰받은 변호사의 경우, 금품 등의 수수 명목이 변호사의 지위 및 직무범위와 무관하다고 평가할 수 있는 때에만 위 제7조의 알선수재죄가 성립하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is a provision that subjects to punishment even lawful solicitations or brokerage activities performed by an attorney in accordance with the intent of the retainer (negative) / In the case of an attorney who has been formally entrusted with a legal case, whether the crime of accepting bribes for brokerage under the aforesaid Article 7 is established only when the receipt of money or valuables, etc. can be assessed as unrelated to the attorney's status and scope of duties (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
변호사법 제2조는 변호사의 지위에 관하여 "변호사는 공공성을 지닌 법률 전문직으로서 독립하여 자유롭게 그 직무를 수행한다."라고 규정하고, 제3조는 변호사의 직무에 관하여 "변호사는 당사자와 그 밖의 관계인의 위임이나 국가·지방자치단체와 그 밖의 공공기관의 위촉 등에 의하여 소송에 관한 행위 및 행정처분의 청구에 관한 대리행위와 일반 법률사무를 하는 것을 그 직무로 한다."라고 규정하고 있다. 이러한 변호사 지위의 공공성과 직무범위의 포괄성에 비추어 볼 때, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘특정경제범죄법’이라 한다) 제7조의 규정은 변호사가 그 위임의 취지에 따라 수행하는 적법한 청탁이나 알선행위까지 처벌대상으로 한 규정이라고 볼 수 없다. 따라서 정식으로 법률사건을 의뢰받은 변호사의 경우라면, 사건의 해결을 위한 접대나 향응, 뇌물의 제공, 사적인 연고관계나 친분관계를 부정하게 이용하는 등 공공성을 지닌 법률전문직으로서의 정상적인 활동이라고 보기 어려운 방법을 내세워 의뢰인의 청탁 취지를 금융회사 등의 임직원에게 전하거나 의뢰인을 대신하여 스스로 금융회사 등의 임직원에게 청탁하는 행위 등을 한다는 명목으로 금품이나 그 밖의 이익을 받거나 받을 것을 약속하는 등, 금품 등의 수수의 명목이 변호사의 지위 및 직무범위와 무관하다고 평가할 수 있는 때에만 특정경제범죄법 제7조 위반죄가 성립한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제7조, 변호사법 제2조, 제3조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger