The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found all of the facts charged of this case guilty.

In light of the records and evidence, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and did not err by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

In addition, if the appellate court reverses and renders a judgment of the first instance on the grounds that are not included in the grounds for appeal, it shall be deemed that the appellate court has judged the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing alleged by the appellant in the process of determining the punishment, and it shall not be deemed that the appellate court omitted the judgment on the legitimacy of the grounds

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3035, Jun. 29, 2007). Therefore, the lower court did not err by omitting judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on sentencing constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, 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

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