If the appellate court reverses and renders a judgment of the first instance on the grounds that are not included in the grounds for appeal, it shall be deemed that the grounds for appeal alleged by the appellant were determined in the course of determining the punishment, and it shall be deemed that the judgment on the propriety of the grounds for appeal is not separately stated

failure to make any judgment;

In light of the records, the court below reversed the judgment of the first instance court ex officio and determined the sentence against the defendant through pleading on the ground that the declaration of return of seized stolen articles was omitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3035, Jun. 29, 2007).

Therefore, the court below did not separately decide on the defendant's reasons for unfair appeal.

In so doing, there were errors by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the grounds for appeal and omitting judgment thereon.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 51 (Conditions for Sentencing) of the Criminal Act since the reasons favorable to the defendant are not properly considered is an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not 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.