The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evidence admissibility or the degree of proof necessary for conviction, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Even if one of the evidence is inadmissible, it can be used as evidence against the opposition to the impeachment of the probative value of a statement, not as evidence for criminal facts or indirect facts.

According to the records, the court below used the protocol of interrogation of the suspect to determine the probative value of the testimony of E in the first instance court, which was prepared by the prosecutor who attended and testified as a witness in the court of the court below as a material to determine the probative value of the testimony of E in the court of first instance, and did not use the protocol of interrogation of the suspect as

Therefore, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by either misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the trial-oriented principle, etc.

In addition, according to Article 383, Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, may be appealed on the ground that the amount of punishment is extremely unreasonable.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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