The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance, the court below’s determination that each of the facts charged in the instant case was guilty is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below 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 there was an error of misconception of facts as to embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the Defendant’s assertion that it was the ground for appeal or that it was not subject to an ex officio determination by the court below was raised in the final appeal

In addition, the argument that the court below erred by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balanced criminal punishment and the principle of responsibility in determining the punishment against the defendant constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

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