For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted of the instant facts charged.

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 misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the unlawful acquisition intent of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and an occupational embezzlement, illegal solicitation of a crime of giving property, and granting of property.

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 against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for

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