1. Except in cases where the entry in the trial record is clearly clerical error, it is absolute that the entry in the trial record as the litigation procedure on the trial date must be proved by the protocol, and its probative value is not allowed by materials other than the trial record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3282, Oct. 10, 2003). In this case, the fourth trial protocol of the court below in the case of this case, “The presiding judge of the court below sentenced the judgment by the judgment and notified the appeal period, the appeal filing court, and the appeal court.”

In the original judgment of the court below, the sentence against the defendant is written as "one year and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of April, 2, 3, and 5 as stated in the judgment of the court below".

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal purporting that the defendant was sentenced to "one year and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 in the judgment," with respect to the crime No. 2, 3, and 5 in accordance with the absolute probative value of the trial protocol," and that "the defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, and since 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 2, 3, and 5 in the judgment of the court below, the court below erred in

2. According to Article 383 Subparag. 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 shall be permitted 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 is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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