The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged in the grounds of appeal, in relation to the part of the charge alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the court below erred by significantly deviating from the sentencing discretion is ultimately 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 amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot

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