For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case.

In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court of fact-finding unless the fact-finding and the selection and evaluation of evidence based thereon do not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the judgment of the court of fact-finding is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of fact-finding unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, the judgment of the court below did not contain any grounds to believe that the court below exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and

In addition, the ground of appeal to the effect that there is an error of mistake of facts as to fraud among the judgment below is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not regard it as the ground of appeal or that the court below did not

Furthermore, the argument that the lower court’s failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the grounds for sentencing, thereby infringing on the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility constitutes an allegation 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 above assertion or other argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot

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