1. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the part concerning the fraudulent aiding and abetting against the Defendants among the facts charged in the instant

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, 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

2. According to the records on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, Defendant B asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with the grounds of appeal, while appealed from the judgment of the first instance court, but withdrawn the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal concerning mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles except unfair sentencing on the first trial date of the lower court.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Defendant

B argues that limiting cases where Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act may apply as the grounds of appeal for unfair sentencing is against the constitutional provisions that stipulate the right of the people to be tried by the Supreme Court and the principle of equality is violated.

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of 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, Defendant B’s aforementioned assertion is nothing more than the purport that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

In addition, the lower court’s assertion that the lower court violated the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of accountability is also unreasonable.