According to the records, although the defendant asserted a mistake of facts concerning fraud among the facts charged in this case in the statement of grounds for appeal and the defendant was not clearly withdrawn from the above mistake of facts on the date of the original trial, the court below determined that the defendant's grounds for appeal was limited to the misconception of facts concerning the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds of appeal in regard to fraud among the facts charged in the instant case. The lower court, among the facts charged in the instant case, may be deemed to include the allegation that the lower court omitted judgment on the grounds of appeal regarding fraud.

However, in light of the evidence adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty of fraud among the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts in violation of logical and empirical rules, and the above error of omission is not affected by the judgment.

In addition, in light of the evidence adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is justifiable to find the court below guilty of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act among the facts charged in this case on its grounds as stated

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of finding facts against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

On the other hand, the argument that there is an error of law in the incomplete hearing or misunderstanding of legal principles as to collection is asserted only when the defendant took it as the ground for appeal, or the court below did not take it as the object of judgment ex officio.