On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the primary charges of this case on the grounds that there was no proof of crime.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Meanwhile, Article 51 of the Criminal Act and the matters concerning whether the circumstances before the opening are obvious are subject to the discretion of the court concerning the determination of punishment widely. As such, in principle, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court of final appeal cannot decide whether the lower court’s determination on whether the matters of Article 51 of the Criminal Act concerning the suspension of pronouncement and whether the circumstances before the opening are obvious, and the lower court’s determination was significantly erroneous.

Even if there is no different difference (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6138 delivered on February 20, 2003). Therefore, the allegation that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the suspension of sentence merely criticizes the lower judgment on the ground that the amount of punishment imposed by the lower court is unreasonable.

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