For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant acquired the victims’ pecuniary benefits equivalent to the game money by inputting and processing information without authority into the computer or any other information processing device.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the objects of the crime of fraud by using computers, etc., contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, 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 amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

In addition, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing belongs to the territory of the legislative authority’s freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. Thus, it cannot be said that the above legal provision violates the constitutional provisions that stipulate the right of the people to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the above provision is unconstitutional.

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