For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting of the fraudulent part among the facts charged in the instant case and the fraudulent part around April 2, 2014, and around December 28, 2012.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules without exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the victim’s specific offense in fraud, deception and deception.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law in sentencing review is ultimately an unfair sentencing argument.

However, according to 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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