According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the criminal facts recognized by the first instance court is not a legitimate ground for appeal against the lower judgment as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment, the grounds of appeal alleged that the lower court erred in infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance between crimes and the principle of responsibility, and the reasons of appeal are eventually unfair.

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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the determination of the sentence of the court below, including the above argument, is unfair, cannot

In addition, the court may choose not to investigate the application for examination of evidence when it deems it unnecessary at the discretion of the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3282 delivered on October 10, 2003, etc.). Thus, the court below did not adopt the defendant's application for examination of evidence.

in this case, it is not illegal.

In addition, the court below rendered a judgment without accepting an application for postponement of the date of declaration for agreement with the victim, even after examining the record, whether the date of the hearing or the date of the hearing for the conclusion or closure of the closed argument or the postponement of the date of declaration;

On the other hand, there is a violation of procedural law by infringing on the defendant's right to defense or restricting the right to assistance of a private legal counsel.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided by all participating Justices.