In the case of failure to pay a fine, if the court orders the detention in a workhouse, the amount of fine per day per detention shall be set and the period of detention shall be set at the discretion of the court within the limit of Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 70Do1813 Decided November 24, 1970, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9187 Decided September 4, 2014). The lower court’s determination of the period of custody to the Defendant within the scope of Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act is justifiable, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, pursuant 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 more 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 punishment is too unreasonable cannot be

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below violated the principle of prohibition of double punishment is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as the ground for appeal or as the subject of judgment ex officio.

Furthermore, even if ex officio review of the judgment below, there is no error as claimed in the grounds for appeal.

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.