The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the law of logic and experience or by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the application of repeated crime as to the provision of Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant's ground for appeal is the reason for appeal or the court below did not consider it as a subject of ex officio.

Furthermore, the lower court did not err in its determination as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the sentencing criteria of the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission pursuant to Article 81-2 of the Court Organization Act are general and objective criteria prepared for rational sentencing in criminal trials, so the types of punishment should be selected and the sentence should be determined, but it does not have the legal binding force.

(Article 81-7(1) of the Court Organization Act. The argument in the grounds of appeal to the effect that the judgment of the court below violates the sentencing guidelines in sentencing determination is not acceptable.

In addition, the lower court’s assertion that there was an error of misapprehension of legal principles in sentencing determination constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 sentencing of the punishment

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.