For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted of the instant facts charged.

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 principle of prohibition of analogical interpretation of the principle of no punishment without the law, the principle of no punishment without the law, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent

In light of the record, the lower court did not err by infringing the Defendant’s right to trial and the right to defense.

In addition, the argument that the court below violated the principle of proportionality in the judgment 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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the allegation of unfair sentencing in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the

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