For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s grounds of appeal claiming mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the facts charged of this case, and upheld the first instance judgment.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the intent or possession of larceny, or omitting judgment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, 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 the punishment is unreasonable

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