According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years has been pronounced, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below has influenced the judgment

In addition, the ground of appeal, which is merely 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, or fact-finding based thereon, is not a legitimate ground of appeal

Therefore, in this case where the court of fact-finding rendered a fine and additional collection against the defendant, the argument that the above additional collection constitutes double punishment in relation to the seizure cannot be accepted, and the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the above additional collection constitutes double punishment is not acceptable, since the confiscation of seized articles was not sentenced.

In addition, according to the above provision, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, a final 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 punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground

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