The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment, the court below was just to have judged that the modified facts charged were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on deception and deception of fraud.

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, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, shall be deemed to belong to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. Thus, the above provision of the law cannot be deemed to violate the constitutional provisions that stipulate the right to a trial or to be unconstitutional provisions that violate the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Thus, the argument that Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.