According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds of appeal along with unfair sentencing, but withdrawn the grounds of appeal for misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the first trial of the court below.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

In addition, as long as the Defendant left the grounds of appeal only on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred in failing to ex officio decide on the circumstances other than unfair sentencing, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal purporting that the lower judgment erred by violating the law regarding Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be accepted.

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred in violating the principle of prohibition of under-protection under the Constitution is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, 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 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 defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable cannot

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