Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged against the Defendant was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “for profit” under Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the exemption of value added tax, deduction of the purchase amount of value added tax, the principle of absence of one-day, and the principle on “for profit” under Article 106(1)4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in failing to suspend the suspension of the sentence of a fine due to a lack of deliberation on the circumstances of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair 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.