For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that, in calculating the amount to be collected from the Defendant pursuant to the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, the Defendant should deduct the expenses to be incurred in purchasing the recorded amount in its holding.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, we did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the factual mistake of collection of additional collection and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the proportionality.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not legitimate grounds for

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