1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act by using the name of the law firm among the facts charged against Defendant A, on the grounds indicated

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of violating the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the use of the name of a law firm other than the law firm, the legality of institution of prosecution

2. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found Defendant A guilty on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the name of attorney and the facts charged against Defendant B among the facts charged against Defendant A.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the name lending to

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