1. According to the records as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and only asserted unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing is erroneous against the basic principles of the Constitution and the principle of equality by losing its legitimacy and balance is ultimately 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 against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where Defendant B’s minor punishment was imposed, the argument that the sentencing of punishment is unreasonable

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor in light of the records, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, maintains the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant B on the grounds that there is no proof of the offense among the facts charged (excluding the part concerning the principal charge) of this case against Defendant B, and it is reasonable to determine the lower court not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of the offense. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

4. Conclusion.