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 by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of fraud in violation of logical and empirical rules.

The court may decide not to adopt the application for examination of evidence when it deems it unnecessary at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947, Jan. 27, 2011). Thus, the court below did not adopt the application for witness of the defendant.

Even if it is not illegal, it cannot be considered unlawful.

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 may be filed on the ground

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The allegation that the court of first instance erred in infringing the defendant's right to request perusal and copy of the trial records and the defendant's right to defense is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as the ground for appeal or ex officio

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