For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted all of the charges of this case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the indication of the source of punishment not to impose punishment and the judgment dismissing the prosecution.

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted a misapprehension of the legal principle as well as unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal as to misapprehension of the legal principle on the first trial date of the original

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of a crime of intrusion upon residence cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed.

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.

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