The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged in the instant case is guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles.

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

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty of care under the Road Traffic Act cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence due to reasons for sentencing and violation of the rule of experience or logic constitutes the argument 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 on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable 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.