First of all, the issue was that the lower court erred in its fact-finding regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Crime, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

In light of the records, in this case where it is not possible to find out that the facts established by the court below exceeded the above limit even after examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the above appeal shall not be accepted merely because it criticizes the matters falling under the exclusive authority of the court below.

On the other hand, the argument that there is an error of deviation from discretion on sentencing is ultimately attributable to the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing may be filed only where the court below rendered a judgment of death penalty or imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for not less than ten years

Therefore, in this case where a more minor punishment is imposed on the defendant, an appeal is not allowed to be filed with the Supreme Court for the reason that the amount of punishment is unreasonable.

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