The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged 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 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 causal relationship between the intention and deception in fraud, deception and disposal act.

In addition, even in light of the record, the first instance court and the lower court did not err by infringing on the defendant's right to a participatory trial in violation of statutes.

As the Defendant did not fully consider the grounds for sentencing favorable to the Defendant in the judgment of the lower court, the Defendant alleged that there was an error affecting the conclusion of the judgment by sentencing excessively heavy punishment as a result of losing an adequate balance between the crime and the punishment, which constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 sentence is too unreasonable cannot be 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.