1. According to the records on Defendant A’s appeal, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted a mistake of facts on the grounds of unfair sentencing, along with the grounds of appeal, and withdrawn the allegation of mistake on the date of the first trial of the lower court.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles based on the facts acknowledged by the lower court 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 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 sentencing of the

2. According to the records on Defendant B’s appeal, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that there is an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment below is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts as to sentencing conditions constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 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 sentencing of the punishment is unfair

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