1. The argument that the court below exceeded the inherent limits of sentencing discretion in violation of the principle of balance of punishment and the principle of accountability, by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles in sentencing, or by failing to properly examine the circumstances attached to sentencing, constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not legitimate

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor in light of the record, it is justifiable to maintain the first instance judgment which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by September 26, 201 among the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there is no proof of crime. 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

3. All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.