The appeal is dismissed.

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

Habitual larceny under Article 332 of the Criminal Act constitutes a serious crime as prescribed by Article 2 subparag. 1 [Attachment Table] of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do5759, Jul. 18, 2017). Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on criminal proceeds as prescribed by the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds.

The argument that the judgment of the court below was erroneous in failing to properly consider the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act in determining the sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair 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.