The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, which maintained the reasoning of the court below, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of selling phiphones among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by violating the law of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence

In addition, the part of the appellate brief for Defendant’s submission that “the court below erred by violating the Constitution, laws, orders, and rules, or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment,” is merely stated in such assertion, and did not state specific reasons, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

On the other hand, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by exceeding the limit of the discretionary power of sentencing constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable, and the allegation that the above assertion or punishment

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