1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court of first instance as to the assertion of inconsistency with the reasoning, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the imprisonment by rejecting all the claims of unfair sentencing against the defendant and the prosecutor, on the grounds stated in its reasoning. The part concerning the crime Nos. 1 and 2 in the judgment of first instance as to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act is reversed on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and sentenced to a fine as to the crime No. 2 in the judgment of first instance, among the charges in this case.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal purporting that the judgment of the court below which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance as to the third crime in the judgment of the court below with erroneous understanding that the part concerning the third crime in the judgment of the court below concerning the third crime was erroneous.

2. According to the records on the remaining arguments in the grounds of appeal, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with the grounds of appeal, but withdrawn the grounds of appeal concerning mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial date of the lower court.

In such a case, the argument that there is an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment below is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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 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 is unfair

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