The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below was just in holding that the court below convicted of the issuance of philophones on May 23, 2013 among the modified facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there was no error of law by violating the law of logic and experience and by misapprehending the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred by infringing on the basic contents of the principle of balance of crime and the principle of responsibility in determining punishment, and thereby exceeding the limit of sentencing discretion constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may be filed only when the court below rendered a death penalty, an indefinite term, or an imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground

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