The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty on the part of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In addition, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the criminal intent of deception and deception in fraud, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation by violating logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on the criminal intent of deception and deception

In addition, even if examining the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 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 is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the Defendant, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate appeal.

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