For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the 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 inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of violating the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Similar to Fraud, or by violating

In addition, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in examining the sentencing conditions.

The argument that sentencing is against the principle of balance between crimes and the principle of responsibility is ultimately an argument of unfair sentencing.

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

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on 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.