A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are merely receiving wages from the law office of this case, and there was no fact that the Defendant employed a lawyer in collusion with F, etc., and established and operated the law office of this case.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same as the above in the trial, and the lower court determined that the instant facts charged was guilty by taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. In full view of the reasoning of the instant case’s argument and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record, the lower court’s sentencing on the Defendant appears to have been reasonably determined by fully taking account of all the circumstances, including the various reasons for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the lower court’s punishment is modified.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.