The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the instant facts charged were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on prescription, universal crimes, the custodian’s status in embezzlement, and the criminal intent

In addition, pursuant to 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

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