If the appellate court accepts part of the grounds for appeal specified in the statement of reasons for appeal and reverses the first instance judgment and renders a self-determination thereof, the validity of the remaining grounds for appeal asserted by the appellant shall be deemed to have been determined in the process of a trial and determination as a fact-finding court, and separately, it did not specify

failure to make any judgment;

Nor can it be viewed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4517, Nov. 13, 2008). According to the records, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes of fraud in the judgment of the first instance.

In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the first instance court is reversed, and the facts that the Defendant was sentenced to punishment after pleading are revealed. Thus, the lower court did not separately determine the Defendant’s grounds for appeal for unfair sentencing

There is an error of omission in the judgment on the grounds of appeal, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, according to Article 383 (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 is imposed, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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