The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence adopted, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged (excluding the part not guilty on the grounds of the first instance judgment) was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to habituality under Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, by misunderstanding of facts against logical

In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just that the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on mitigation of self-denunciation based on the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and there is no illegality

Meanwhile, among the grounds of appeal, the allegation that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of law or the specification of the facts charged is not a ground of appeal, or that the court below did not consider it as the subject of judgment ex officio, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years

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