The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the facts charged in this case were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on sentencing by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance of crime or the principle of responsibility in sentencing is an unfair argument.

However, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been 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.