The judgment below

Even upon examining the reasoning in light of evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of fund-raising without delay and in the misapprehension of legal principles as to each fraud against the victim F and P is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since the defendant's ground for appeal is justified or the court below did not consider it as an object of judgment ex officio.

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred in violation of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

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

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