The judgment below

In light of the records, the court below's addition to the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that there was an omission of 18 to 23 of the list of crimes against R and 19 to 34 of the list of crimes against the victim S (3) in the list of crimes against R and the list of crimes against the victim S were based on Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the grounds for sentencing, thereby infringing on the essential contents of Article 51 of the Criminal Act and the principle of the balance of punishment or the principle of the responsibility, constitutes an 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

Meanwhile, the argument that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a blanket crime among the grounds of appeal is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as a ground of appeal or ex officio

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