The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance, the court below was just in holding that the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act among the facts charged in this case was found guilty (excluding the acquittal portion) on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. There were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment is unreasonable

Furthermore, even in examining records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

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