The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of the negligence of occupational commission out of the facts charged of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to probative value, commission of duties, abortion on commission, and Article 269

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the method of examining the sentencing and determining the sentencing is ultimately 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 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.