The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, convicted the Defendant of the charges.

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 legal doctrine on the establishment and acceptance of a crime

Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that his act does not constitute a crime of unjust enrichment, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted only when the Defendant took the grounds for appeal or did not take the subject of an ex officio determination by the court below.

Furthermore, even in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the crime of unjust enrichment.

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.