According to the records, it is evident that the defendant has an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to confiscation in the judgment of the court of first instance, which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty.

Nevertheless, since the court below did not make any judgment on the above argument, it constitutes omission of judgment.

However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court maintained by the court below, it is just in its conclusion that the court below judged that all of the facts charged in this case is guilty and maintained the judgment of the first instance court ordering confiscation, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on confiscation, and such omission of judgment by the court below does not affect the conclusion of the judgment

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 defendant, the argument that the sentencing of

Other grounds of appeal by the defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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