The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where several acts or acts falling under the name of the same crime continue to be committed for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and the legal interests of the same injury are the same, each act shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the unity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized or the method of committing the crime is not the same, each act constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3172, Sept. 8, 2006; 2013Do10467, Nov. 28, 2013). Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court does not have a relation between the crime of this case and the crime of comprehensive crimes of the judgment that has already been finalized.

The judgment of the court below is just in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to comprehensive crimes as alleged in the grounds of

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

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