1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act of June 8, 2014 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to admissibility of evidence is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Meanwhile, even though self-denunciation was merely a reason for voluntary mitigation, it does not necessarily have to be taken into account in sentencing. Thus, we cannot accept the allegation that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on self-denunciation or by failing to grant legal reduction or exemption.

3. In addition, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, and thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment

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