The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charge of habitual fraud and occupational embezzlement (excluding the part not guilty for each reason).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, but did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the reinforcement of confession, calculation of the amount of fraud and the joint principal offender in the crime of habitual fraud, unlawful acquisition intent in the crime of occupational embezzlement, a person who keeps another’s property, and an act of ex post facto punishment, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by failing

In addition, the argument that the defendant created a right to collateral security for the recovery of damage and not much embezzled amount for his/her own interest is ultimately an argument 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. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.