The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violating defense justice.

In addition, Article 109 Subparag. 1 of the Defense Act provides that "any person, other than an attorney-at-law, who receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits, or who, in return, gives or promises to give such things to a third party, shall be punished for "any person who, in the course of providing legal counseling services, preparation of legal documents, and other legal services, such as a litigation case or administrative adjudication, for the relevant case."

When considering the legislative purpose, legislative purport, contents, and reasonable interpretation possibility of the above provision, the above provision cannot be said to violate the freedom of choice of occupation guaranteed by the Constitution or violate the principle of prohibition of excessive restriction.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not legitimate grounds for

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