1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

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 against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the credibility of the

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing is inconsistent with the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, 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 on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") is sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. With respect to the case for which the request for attachment order is filed, if the defendant files an appeal against the case for which the request for attachment order is filed, the appeal shall be deemed filed.

However, there is no entry of reasons in the petition of appeal, and there is no entry of reasons for objection in the petition of appeal.

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