In a case where only the prosecutor appealed the judgment of the first instance on the ground of unfair sentencing, and the defendant did not appeal, the defendant may not appeal the judgment of the first instance on the ground of misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and incomplete hearing.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do579, May 28, 2009). According to the records, only the prosecutor appealeds the judgment of the first instance on the ground of unreasonable sentencing, and the Defendant did not appeal. The lower court accepted the prosecutor’s appeal and rendered a sentence heavier than that of the first instance court against the Defendant.

Therefore, the argument that the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Narcotics Control Act cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, as long as the defendant did not file an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. as in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is not necessary to state the reasons therefor.

The judgment of the court below shall not contain any error of law in the omission of the reasons or inconsistency of the reasons.

In addition, the grounds of appeal purporting that the judgment of the court below erred by deviating from the sentencing discretion 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 above argument to the

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