The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Although examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the trial principle of evidence, probative value of evidence, etc.

Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall require the defendant to bear all or part of the costs of trial when a sentence is pronounced.

Article 191 (1) of the same Act provides that "where litigation procedures are completed by court, the defendant shall be required to bear litigation costs ex officio."

“.......”

Since the burden of litigation costs is not imposed, but should not be assessed in accordance with punishment in a substantial sense (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do872, Apr. 24, 2001, etc.). The court below’s order the Defendant to bear litigation costs in accordance with the above provision is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, the principle of equality, the principle of clarity, or the principle of statutory penalty, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to aggravated sentencing conditions, omission of judgment as to sentencing grounds, and Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the violation of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act is ultimately an unfair argument in 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Therefore, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is legitimate in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.