The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was guilty of the charge of this case (excluding the part not guilty of the reasoning) on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intention to acquire unlawful acquisition, larceny and embezzlement, commencement of commission in a lawsuit, intentional and damage in a crime of fraud, intentional act in a crime of false accusation, intentional act without doubt in a crime of embezzlement, and consignment relation

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in violating the principle of balance of punishment, the principle of responsibility, and the principle of proportionality in the determination of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

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