The lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Article 186 (1) (main sentence) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall require the accused to bear all or part of the costs of trial when a sentence is pronounced.

Article 191(1) provides that “A judgment shall be rendered ex officio where the defendant bears litigation costs in the event that the litigation procedures are completed by a trial.”

“......”

Such cost of lawsuit is not imposed, but should be assessed in accordance with the penalty in a substantial sense (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do872 delivered on April 24, 2001, etc.). Thus, the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration is not applied.

Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged in the grounds of appeal, which ordered the Defendant to bear litigation costs.

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