The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending 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 deception and deception intent of fraud, without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that: (a) the lower court’s sentence is more severe; and (b) the restriction of cases where Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act may be deemed as the grounds of appeal on unreasonable sentencing is contrary to the constitutional provisions governing the right of citizens to be tried by the

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the constitutional provision that limits the right of citizens to a trial by the Supreme Court or an unconstitutional provision contrary to the equality principle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is nothing more than the purport that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

In addition, pursuant to 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 more 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 sentencing of the

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