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 all of the charges of this case (except for the part without charge) were guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the

And it is not necessary for the court to adopt the application for evidence at the discretion of the court.

The court below rejected the defendant's application for witness since it may not be examined when deciding the person (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947, Jan. 27, 201, etc.).

Even if it is not illegal, it cannot be said that it is illegal.

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred by infringing on the principle of balance of crimes and the essential contents of the principle of accountability constitutes 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 has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been 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.