The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, which maintained the reasoning of the court below, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes among the facts charged in this case for the reasons stated in its holding. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by violating the law of logic and experience and exceeding

In addition, the argument of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment among the grounds of appeal is not a legitimate ground of appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider

Furthermore, even in examining records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in the violation of the principle of balance of crime or the principle of responsibility in sentencing constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment is unfair

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