The judgment below

Even if examining the reasoning in light of evidence, the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged (excluding the part on acquittal in the grounds of appeal) did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “false or other unlawful means” in the crime of violating the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, causation in fraud, and mistake in law.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred by exceeding the inherent limit of the authority of sentencing discretion and violating Article 51 of the Criminal Act by violating the principle of balanced sentencing or the principle of responsibility in sentencing hearing and judgment of sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

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 Defendants, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence is unreasonable

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