For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of insurance fraud or joint principal offender, etc.

In addition, even if the record is examined, the court below did not err by infringing on the right to assistance of counsel or the right to defense of the defendant, such as the grounds for appeal.

The argument that the defendant was subject to a compulsory investigation by an investigative agency against illegal arrest or detention, is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as the defendant alleged in the final appeal that there was no ground for appeal or that there was no ground for appeal by the court below to be judged ex officio.

According to 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal

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