2. Determination

A. According to the record as to Defendant B’s assertion other than unfair sentencing, Defendant B’s submission of a petition of appeal on October 16, 2015 to the judgment of the lower court, upon which “the first instance court is likely to have rendered a sentence.”

The facts that submitted a statement of reasons for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing with the content of “an appeal,” and the notice of receipt of the trial records for the trial against Defendant B was served on November 11, 2015, and on November 18, 2015, the notice of receipt of the trial records was served on the above defense counsel on November 20, 2015. However, the defense counsel did not submit any statement of reasons for appeal during the period for submission of the written reasons for appeal. On February 25, 2016, the court appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts.

“The lower court asserted that the Defendant B, who was a subordinate offender, was guilty of misapprehending the legal doctrine that applied to Defendant B as a joint principal offender. In the course of investigation, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding video recording materials (on-site photographing videos), which are evidence taken by illegal investigation in violation of the warrant requirement requirement in the course of investigation, did not have the admissibility of evidence, but did not constitute evidence of guilt against Defendant B.

Recognizing the fact that “the grounds for appeal” are submitted, each of the above arguments is submitted after the lapse of the submission period for the appeal and does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2) Furthermore, even upon ex officio examination of the assertion of misunderstanding of the aforementioned legal doctrine, there is sufficient time to communicate with the accomplices who intend to jointly commit a crime directly or indirectly, rather than demanding any legal penalty, and there is no direct evidence to do so.