According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and argued mistake of facts as well as unfair sentencing, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts on the first trial date of the lower court.

In this case, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, omission of judgment, or incomplete hearing is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the sentencing criteria of the Supreme Court Sentencing under Article 81-2 of the Court Organization Act are general and objective criteria prepared for the rational sentencing in criminal trials, so it shall be respected when choosing the types of punishment and determining the sentence, but it shall not have the legal binding force.

(Article 81-7(1) of the Court Organization Act. The argument in the grounds of appeal to the effect that the judgment of the court below violates the sentencing guidelines in sentencing determination is not acceptable.

In addition, pursuant to 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 more 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 sentencing of the

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