The relevant provision of law concerning criminal facts of a defendant in the application of the law of the court of first instance.

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the crime of mistake or occupational breach of trust is established, and the relation between fraud and occupational breach of trust is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, according to the records, since it is apparent that the first instance court omitted Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act while stating the pertinent provision on Defendant’s fraud in the application column of statutes on December 26, 2016 from the application column of statutes, it is obvious that the court omitted such provision, it is decided to rectify it ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure. The allegation in the grounds of appeal that the lower court and the first instance

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

May 29, 2020