If the appellate court reverses and renders a judgment of the first instance on the grounds that are not included in the grounds for appeal, it shall be deemed that the appellate court has judged on the grounds for an unfair appeal for the sentencing alleged by the appellant in the process of determining the punishment, and it does not separately specify the decision as to

failure to make any judgment;

It does not mean (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3035, Jun. 29, 2007, etc.). According to the records, the court below reversed ex officio the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of changes in indictment and determined the punishment against the defendant through pleading. Thus, the court below did not separately determine the grounds for the defendant's unfair appeal for sentencing.

Therefore, there is an error of omission in judgment as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, the argument that the court below's determination of sentencing is erroneous in its determination of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

Therefore, under 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Therefore, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable is not 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.