The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The argument points out that the fact-finding of the lower court with regard to the facts charged of this case was erroneous.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

In light of the records, in this case where it is not possible to find out that the facts established by the court below exceeded the above limit even after examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the above appeal shall not be accepted merely because it criticizes the matters falling under the exclusive authority of the court below.

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may only be lodged by death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence was imposed on the defendant, an appeal is not allowed to be filed with the Supreme Court on the ground

In addition, the argument that the sentencing date for the defendant is delayed does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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