Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

In addition, the appeal is erroneous in the judgment of the court below beyond the inherent limit of sentencing discretion in violation of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility.

The argument that there is an error of incomplete deliberation on the sentencing conditions or a violation of the rules of evidence constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

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