The court below acknowledged the confession of the defendant as to the crime of false accusation against the defendant before the judgment of the case became final and conclusive, and reversed the judgment of the court of first instance, and sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for the same year as the judgment of the court of first instance through legal mitigation.

In such a case, the sentence of the lower court does not necessarily have to be flicker than that prescribed by the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do1984, Sept. 27, 1983; 83Do360, Oct. 23, 2003; 2003Do4773, Oct. 23, 2003). In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to statutory mitigation under Article 153

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by the rules of evidence, the violation of the rules of evidence, and the misapprehension of the legal principles constitutes an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, under 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 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 punishment

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