The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged in the instant case was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by recognizing facts contrary to logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud.

In addition, the argument that there is an error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the grounds of sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

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

On the other hand, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of an indictment only shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as grounds for appeal or make it subject

Other grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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