The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the preparation of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant is jointly and severally liable for larceny, on the ground that the Defendant was in a temporally cooperative relationship with respect to each of the special larceny crimes of this case, and thus, rejected the Defendant’s mistake of facts and the grounds for appeal by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of facts by the lower court, and is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. Furthermore, even when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, relevant legal principles, and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding joint crimes or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical

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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable 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.