According to the evidence in its reasoning, the judgment of the court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant borrowed the defendant's charge of violation of Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Act No. 2654 of Dec. 20, 1973) since he merely borrowed the defendant's charge of violation of Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Act No. 2654 of Dec. 20, 1973) since he did not prove the fact-finding and decision of the court below, and there is no proof of the facts-finding and decision of the court below in light of the records, and there is no error of facts against the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law, since the defendant had an interest in the construction work executed by Non-Party 2, who was forced to release him from a new disease of non-indicted 2, who was detained by the crime of occupational breach of trust.

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)