The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that all the facts charged of the instant case are recognized, and rejected the grounds of appeal on the mistake of facts disputing them.

The grounds of appeal, which points out the violation of the rules of evidence, is merely the purport of disputing the judgment of the court below on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In light of the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err by violating the rules of logic and experience or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, etc.

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 fine is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

In addition, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act limiting the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing belongs to the territory of the legislative authority’s freedom of formation permitted. Thus, the above provision of the Act cannot be deemed as a unconstitutional provision that infringes on the citizen’s right to trial or the right to equality, as alleged in

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