According to the records, although the defendant asserted a mistake of facts as to the organization of the criminal organization in the statement of grounds of appeal as grounds of appeal, and did not clearly withdraw the claim on the date of the original trial, the court below maintained the judgment of the first instance court which found the defendant guilty without rendering any judgment on the above mistake of facts, and without

However, in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s omission of judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, as it is found guilty of the facts charged.

In light of the record, the first instance judgment and the lower judgment did not err by infringing the Defendant’s right to a participatory trial.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the calculation of the amount of fraud and collection, is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted that the defendant did not regard

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of sentencing and by violating the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of accountability constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

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