1. The court below held that the crime of fraud against the victim No. 1 mutual savings bank in the judgment of the court of first instance is one of the concurrent crimes with the judgment of the court below and Article 37 of the Criminal Code.

Recognizing the judgment of the first instance court that sentenced one punishment for each crime in the judgment, the above crime committed before the judgment becomes final and conclusive and the remaining crimes committed after the judgment became final and conclusive are separately determined and sentenced to punishment.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

2. The argument that the lower court’s judgment erred in violation of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of accountability due to insufficient deliberation on the circumstances under which the conditions for sentencing are attached is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

Therefore, under 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 for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

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