In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that found all of the facts charged of this case guilty on the grounds as stated in its holding does not err by misunderstanding facts in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on deception and intentional act of fraud or double punishment, nor by misapprehending the legal principles on deception and intentional act of fraud, and the first instance court and the court below did not violate the right to a trial for citizen participation or the right to defense of the defendant.

Meanwhile, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of punishment or by failing to examine constitutes an unfair determination of punishment.

In that sense, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, a final appeal is permitted, and thus, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.

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