The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on qualification reproduction, and Articles 13 and 16

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, failure to deliberate on normal data, the principle of balance of crimes, and the principle of liability for the determination of sentencing constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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