The term "victim" in paragraph (3) of the crime in the first instance judgment shall be "victim AB".

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of evidence, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the larceny and bodily injury among the facts charged in the instant case did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, in the appellate brief for Defendant’s submission, the part that “the court below violated the Constitution, laws, orders, and rules, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment,” is merely stated in such assertion, and did not state specific reasons therefor. Thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

On the other hand, the argument that the court below erred by significantly 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 argument that the sentencing of the punishment

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that there is an obvious error in the facts constituting a crime in the first instance judgment on the part of "victim" as provided in paragraph (3) of this Article.