The argument points out that the fact-finding of the lower court with regard to the facts charged of this case was erroneous.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

In light of the records, in this case where it is not possible to find out that the facts established by the court below exceeded the above limit even after examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the above appeal is merely an criticism on the matters falling under the exclusive authority of the court below and thus cannot be accepted.

Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing may be filed only when the court below rendered a sentence of death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years. Thus, an appeal to the Supreme Court is not allowed on the grounds that the amount of punishment is unreasonable.

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