The argument that the court below violated the rules of evidence or evidence judgment on the conditions of sentencing while determining the defendant's punishment, or that the court below erred in violating the principle of balanced sentencing, the principle of responsibility, the principle of presumption of innocence, and the principle of presumption of innocence, or exceeding the limits of the discretionary power of sentencing is ultimately an argument of unfair sentencing.

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 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 punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

In addition, there is no violation of the judgment of the court below regarding the circumstance corresponding to a separate criminal fact as the core sentencing condition without evidence in addition to the sentencing condition stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

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