The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

However, the part of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation (D, J by the court below) of I, which the court below considered as evidence of guilt, was not admitted as evidence by the defendant, and the authenticity was not proven due to the statement in the court court of J.

Therefore, the above statement portion is not admissible pursuant to Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the court below's measure which is used as evidence of guilt is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to admissibility of evidence.

However, even based on the remaining evidence duly admitted, it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Accordingly, the lower court’s error did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, admissibility of evidence, specification of facts charged, and principle of trial on evidence, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment

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