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, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the facts charged in this case was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts beyond the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending relevant legal principles.

In addition, the argument that the defendant's act was forced under Article 12 of the Criminal Act and constitutes a ground for dismissal of liability is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since the defendant alleged that it was the ground for appeal or that it was not subject to an ex officio decision by the court below.

In addition, the argument that the court below's judgment on sentencing contains an error of law that limits the impossibility of expectation of lawful act is an unfair argument in sentencing.

Therefore, under 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 is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Therefore, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment 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.