The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Drivers, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and by misapprehending the principle of free evaluation of evidence

In addition, among the grounds of appeal, the argument that there was an error of misconception of facts as to damage to public goods among the facts charged in this case, is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant, or by the court below that it is not subject to an ex officio

Furthermore, the lower court did not err in its determination as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred in deviating from or abusing the inherent limits of sentencing discretion by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance between crimes and the principle of responsibility in sentencing constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

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 is unreasonable

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