The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment 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 the criminal intent to obtain fraud and the joint principal offender

The Defendant asserts that the lower court’s punishment is excessive, and that limiting the cases where Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act may serve as the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing violates the right to trial and is unconstitutional against the principle of equality.

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the constitutional provision that limits the right of citizens to a trial by the Supreme Court or an unconstitutional provision contrary to the equality principle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, the aforementioned assertion is nothing more than the purport that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal

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