Examining the evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below based on the records, there is no error of law that misleads the defendant as an evidence preparation in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the plaintiff's assertion in the process of fact-finding.

According to the records, among the facts of each of the crimes of this case of this case of the defendant, 10,00,000 won on March 9, 1987 and 30,000,000,000 won on July 17, 198, which the defendant received from the victim's deposits in the bank account unit of flowing water with the non-indicted Kim Jong-hwan's advance payment, as in the lawsuit, but it is recognized that the above Kim Jong-hwan received the above money from the victim in the defendant's heart name and deposited the above money in the bank unit of flowing water, and the defendant used the above money as expenses for appointing the attorney's expense without the victim's permission (see investigation records 238, 240,000,000 won on March 9, 1987, and 40,000,000 won on July 17, 200).

Therefore, even if the defendant did not receive the above money directly from the victim, it shall be deemed that he received it through the above Kim Jong-hwan, and even if the defendant actually used it for the attorney-at-law's fee, even if he received the money from the victim as a solicitation for public officials, it constitutes a penal provision under Article 78 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act. Thus, there is no reason to argue that the above money is attributable to the judgment of the court below on the premise that the above money was paid directly from the victim as the cost of appointing the

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)