The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the offense of insult, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall require the defendant to bear all or part of the costs of trial when a sentence is pronounced.

Article 191 (1) of the same Act provides that "where litigation procedures are completed by court, the defendant shall be required to bear litigation costs ex officio."

“.......”

Since the burden of litigation costs is not imposed, but should not be assessed in accordance with the punishment in a substantial sense, the principle prohibiting disadvantageous alteration is not applied (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do872, Apr. 24, 2001, etc.). The first instance court did not render a judgment ordering the burden of litigation costs, and thus the court below’s order the Defendant to bear the litigation costs in accordance with the above provision is just and acceptable, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor fine is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.