The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Habitualness in habitual fraud refers to the nature of the actor as a habit of repeated fraud.

In determining the existence of such habitive walls, the criminal records of the fraud are important data to determine whether the fraud was committed, but even if there are no criminal records of the fraud, the habitual nature can be recognized if the habitive walls of the fraud are recognized in consideration of various circumstances, such as the frequency, means, methods, and motive of the crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5075, Sept. 10, 2009). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found the Defendant’s habituality and convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such a judgment by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment by the fact-finding court.

In addition, despite examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on habitualness in the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, or by exceeding the bounds of

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in violation of the law by exceeding the limit of the sentencing discretion when 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 determination of the sentence by the court below, including

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