The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged in the instant case was guilty.

The lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and recognized that it exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intention of fraud and deception.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

As such, the Supreme Court does not violate the Constitution Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

The Supreme Court has already judged over several occasions (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1355 delivered on July 11, 1997 and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808 delivered on April 26, 2007, etc.) and there is no need to revise it.

Therefore, the grounds for appeal that Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

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