The judgment below

Examining the reasoning and the reasoning of the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court in light of the records, the crime of assault of this case and the crime of assault of this case committed in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which became final and conclusive by the lower

In light of the foregoing, it is justifiable to maintain the judgment of the first instance that sentenced punishment by applying Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error in the application of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, such as omitting any judgment on whether to reduce or exempt punishment or failing to take into account all of

On the other hand, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and argued only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

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