When comparing and reviewing all the evidence cited by the first instance court as cited by the court below in the records, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of allowing a public official detained in violation of the Narcotics Act to release him, and the court below's action which applied the Attorney-at-Law Act to this case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence. According to Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, money and valuables are received under the pretext of soliciting or arranging a case or affairs handled by a public official, and even if the defendant consumeds part of the expenses for solicitation or mediation after receiving money and valuables, it does not affect the formation of the crime of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 67Do796, Sept. 5, 196). Thus, since the defendant received money and valuables, there is no room for establishing the crime of referral or delivery of evidence, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the Attorney-at-Law Act, and therefore all arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)