According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance that found him guilty of the remaining facts charged except for the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.) among the facts charged of this case, and asserted an unreasonable sentencing as a ground for appeal. In this case, the argument that the judgment below erred by mistake of facts concerning confinement or by misunderstanding relevant legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal

In addition, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the court below, it is just to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the court below found him guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon injury) among the facts charged in the instant case, and to have sentenced him/her guilty. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or by

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 amount of punishment is unreasonable

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