Even in light of relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deception in fraud, joint principal offender, and admissibility of expert evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below exercised discretion in sentencing against the principle of balance of crime and the principle of responsibility is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

In that sense, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, a final appeal is permitted, and thus, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.

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