The argument in the grounds of appeal is that the lower court erred in recognizing the amount of damage caused by each theft as stated in the [Attachment Nos. 8 and 10] among the facts charged in the instant case.

However, the recognition of facts, the selection and evaluation of evidence is within the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

The judgment below

Even if examining the reasoning in light of the record, the fact-finding by the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In addition, considering the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion on mental and physical disability, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, under 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 has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor sentence, 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.