The judgment below

Part 13 and 14 of the second page "two years of suspension of execution in one and half years of imprisonment".

The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only to the extent of filing an appeal based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal should state specific and explicit reasons as to which the court below erred by specifying the grounds of final appeal.

Therefore, without examining the aforementioned specific and explicit reasons in the appellate brief filed by the appellant, only if the ground of appeal simply states that there exists a violation of the law or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below, it shall not be deemed that a legitimate ground of appeal has been submitted since it did not assert any specific grounds for appeal as to what evidence the measure of cooking was against the rules of evidence, or whether there was any error in the application of any statute or any unjustifiable

(2) According to the records, the Defendants merely stated the grounds of appeal on the grounds of fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing in the petition of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do513, Apr. 21, 2000). The Defendants did not at all assert specific grounds for appeal, and without submitting the grounds of appeal, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have submitted legitimate grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

In addition, 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 Defendants, the assertion that the sentencing of the sentence is unreasonable

Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 380(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is obvious that "two years of suspended sentence in one and half years of imprisonment" in Articles 13 and 14 of the second half of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error of "two years of suspended sentence in one year of imprisonment". Thus, it is ex officio in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure