In order to issue an order for the conversion of a fine per day into a workhouse when a fine has not been paid, the court's discretion within the limit of Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to determine the period of custody by setting the amount of fine per day for the detention.

(See Supreme Court Decision 70Do1813 delivered on November 24, 1970). Therefore, the court below’s determination of the period of custody to the defendant within the scope of Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act is just, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below violated the empirical rule in determining punishment constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may only be filed in cases where the court below rendered a death penalty, an indefinite term, or an imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, such

Furthermore, even in examining records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

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