The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of the fraud related to QA among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the misconception of facts as to the rest of shopping mall other than QA's fraud, is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant or by the court below that there is no possibility of being judged ex officio.

Meanwhile, the argument that the judgment of the court below violated the inherent limit of sentencing conditions is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing shall be allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

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