The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below was just in finding the defendant guilty of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act among the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and modification

In addition, the issue of whether to adopt the application for examination of evidence may not be examined when the court deems it unnecessary at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947, Jan. 27, 2011). Thus, even if the court below did not accept the application for witness of the defendant, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

In addition, according to the records, there is no error in the trial procedure of the court below as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

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