The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds for appeal are examined.

Even if the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of different grounds of appeal as well as the unfair sentencing practices, in the event that the reasons for appeal other than the unfair sentencing have been withdrawn prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, it cannot be viewed as the grounds for appeal that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1274, Jun. 11, 2009). According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014 Goju District Court Decision 2014 Goju District Court Decision 1966, Jun. 11, 2009). In such a case, the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be viewed as the grounds for misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. According to the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (hereinafter “the Act on Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds”), “criminal proceeds” refers to “property generated by a criminal act corresponding to a serious crime (Article 2 subparag. 2 (a) of the said Act),” and “serious crime” refers to “crimes committed for the purpose of obtaining any unlawful profits on property, which are prescribed in the attached Table (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the said Act).” In the attached Table, Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act are defined as serious crimes. Article 332 of the Criminal Act is merely a provision that a person who has a habit of larceny should be punished aggravatingly when he/she habitually commits a crime under Articles 329 through 331-2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 332 of the Criminal Act is not applicable to the Act on Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds with respect to a crime committed by a person who has no habitual larceny.”

In light of the fact that the interpretation is remarkably unfair, it will even be interpreted.