The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of the police protocol, the legality of execution of duties, etc., and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, even if examining the record, the first instance court and the lower court’s trial procedure were unlawful, or the Defendant’s right to receive a fair trial was not guaranteed due to the failure to properly guarantee the Defendant’s right to claim perusal or reproduction of the trial records, contrary

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred by violating the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations constitutes an unreasonable sentencing argument.

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 minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

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