For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted of the instant 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 exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the procedure of a participatory trial, the direction of litigation and examination of evidence, and the degree of

In addition, the adoption of the application for evidence, the decision on the participation of professional examiners under Article 279-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and whether to resume pleadings, in principle, are discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do52, Apr. 26, 2018). Therefore, even if the lower court rejected the Defendant’s application, it did not err by infringing on the Defendant’s right to defense and the right

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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on 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.