According to the records, the Defendant asserted in the statement of grounds of appeal that there was an error of law as to vessel investigation, along with the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the Defendant did not state the above grounds of appeal on the first trial date of the lower court, and did not clearly withdraw the assertion on vessel investigation. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s grounds of appeal are only the allegation of unfair sentencing, and dismissed the Defendant’s appeal without determining the allegation on vessel investigation.

However, even after examining the record, there is no evidence to view that I or an informant had caused the defendant to possess the phiphones after having directly related to the investigation agency, and there is no evidence to view that I or an informant had induced the defendant to possess the phiphones. Thus, the defendant's phiphones cannot be viewed as a crime by a naval investigation.

The above omission of judgment by the court below shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Meanwhile, 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 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.