1. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the prosecutor on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, the aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation due to violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “motor vehicle owner” under Articles 46(2)2 and 2 subparag. 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, without exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the grounds for appeal by the defendant, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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