beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged No. 5 through No. 7 of the crime list No. 1 of the judgment below among the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules
In addition, for reasons indicated in its holding, the court below was justified in having sentenced Defendant to imprisonment separately for each crime listed in No. 1 or No. 3 of the crime list No. 1 of the judgment below, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the latter part of
Meanwhile, among the grounds of appeal, the argument that the lower court erred in violation of the principle of prohibition of double punishment or the rule of exclusion of illegally collected evidence is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the lower court that the Defendant did not consider it as grounds of appeal or ex officio
Furthermore, even if examining the record, the lower court did not err as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.
In addition, 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 amount of punishment is unreasonable
Therefore, the appeal is therefore filed.