Whether or not to postpone the sentencing date is at the discretion of the court, and there is no procedural error in the lower court’s proceeding that did not accept the Defendant’s request for postponement of the sentencing date after setting the sentencing date two times, such as infringing the right of equality, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on vessel investigation or collection cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

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 amount of punishment is unreasonable

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