A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unfased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles completed the work in which he was found, and did not take the body of the victim until drinking, or did not contact the victim with his intent to commit an indecent act against the victim by scaming the bus. There is no fact that the victim’s scam was put up on the Defendant’s scambucks by scaming the victim’s scam, and only he was seated on the front seat of the window where the person was seated, and he was seated by scaming the seat on the front seat where the person was seated, and he did not move the scam for the purpose of indecent act against the victim. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable

2. Determination

A. The Defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this case at the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in its reasoning. Examining the judgment of the lower court in comparison with the records, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the

Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is not accepted.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following: (a) there was no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment as the materials for new sentencing have not been submitted in the first instance court; and (b) the lower court’s sentencing was too weak or too unreasonable, and thus, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in full view of all the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court and the reasons for sentencing as indicated in the instant records and the trial process.