1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, it is justifiable to find the lower court guilty of the fraudulent part of the instant facts charged.

In the lower judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding 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 deception and deception in fraud.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the lower court’s sentence is more severe, and that limiting the cases where Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act may serve as the ground of appeal of unfair sentencing violates the principle of excessive prohibition, thereby infringing on the right to a trial and violating the principle of equality.

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the constitutional provision that limits the right of citizens to a trial by the Supreme Court or an unconstitutional provision contrary to the equality principle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is the purport that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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 may be filed on the ground

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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