1. According to the records, the defendant did not appeal against the judgment of the first instance court against the judgment of the first instance, and only the prosecutor appealeded on the ground that the sentence is too unreasonable, and only the defendant appealeds against the judgment of the second instance, and only the defendant asserted unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal. While combining each appeal case, the court below reverses all of the judgment of the first instance and omitted the judgment on each of the judgment of the first instance, and determined a new sentence against the defendant.

In such a case, the argument that the penal provisions against the defendant are unconstitutional cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

[See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Do579 Decided May 28, 2009, and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Do16593-1 (Separation) Decided March 21, 2019] Even in cases where the number of self-denunciation is recognized on March 21, 2019, the court may voluntarily reduce or exempt the punishment (Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act). However, even if the lower court did not reduce the number of self-denunciation, it cannot be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2018, Jun. 11, 2004). Accordingly, the allegation that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of legal doctrine that did not reduce the number of self-denunciation constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing

In addition, the court below's argument that the defendant's right to equality is infringed on the sentencing is an argument of unfair sentencing.

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 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.

3. The grounds for the judgment of conviction must clearly state the facts constituting an offense, the summary of evidence, and the application of the law (Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and any one of them shall be considered as the grounds for the judgment while sentencing a conviction.