beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In full view of the purport of Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 112 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, legislative history, contents and form of each text and text of the Attorney-at-Law Act, in cases where a person other than an attorney-at-law receives or promises to receive money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits, and where he/she handles the relevant legal affairs in which he/she takes over another person's legal affairs, only after having been equipped with the appearance of the same person
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is justified in finding that the defendant committed litigation at the auction procedure of this case for substantially D with the acquisition of the claim and collateral security in this case formally in response to the promise of the defendant to receive money from D and delegated the affairs related to the distribution of collateral security in this case, and thus, it is subject to Article 109 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and there is no violation of the principle of legality or modification of indictment, or violation of the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of the embezzlement of the victim D and the violation of the J-Related Attorney-at-Law Act among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning is also justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on embezzlement
3. Furthermore, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed.