In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the type of crime, the principle of self-responsibility, the principle of trial on evidence, the principle of deception and the criminal intent in fraud, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent in fraud, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

On the other hand, the argument that the court below violated the Constitution and the law while making a judgment of sentencing constitutes an unfair judgment.

In that sense, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, a final appeal is permitted, and thus, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.

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