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 by the lower court as to the grounds for final appeal as to the charge of occupational embezzlement, fabrication of part of private documents, uttering of falsified documents, and fraud, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the lower court was guilty of both the charge of occupational embezzlement, fabrication of private documents related to BMW, BMW, Benz vehicle-related documents, uttering of falsified documents, and fraud. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of final appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of embezzlement

Meanwhile, the facts of the Defendant’s previous conviction, which is the reason for the aggravation of repeated crimes, do not constitute criminal facts and merely merely constitute the reason for sentencing, and even if the indictment does not include the provision applicable to the aggravation of repeated crimes, the court may, ex officio, punish the Defendant as a repeated offense by applying it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Do2004, Dec. 21, 1971; 2006Do3194, Jul. 27, 2006). Examining the records in light of such legal principles, the court below reversed the first instance judgment on the ground that the lower court omitted the aggravation of repeated crimes against some of the crimes of this case, and applied Article 35 of the Criminal Act to each private document related to BW, BW, BW, B car-related vehicle-related document forgery, use, and fraud. In so doing, the court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the amendment of a repeated crime and the aggravated punishment, contrary to what is alleged in the ground for appeal.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the remaining grounds for appeal, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, a final appeal based on unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where the Defendant was sentenced to more minor punishment, the sentence is