The judgment below

The term "three years" in the 4th sentence shall be corrected to "three months".

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the misconception of facts as to the amount collected shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

The argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of incomplete deliberation on basic facts for sentencing is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable cannot

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 380(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since there is an obvious error in the reasoning of the judgment below, it shall be corrected pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

September 11, 2020