If the appellate court reverses and renders a judgment of the first instance on the grounds that are not included in the grounds for appeal, it shall be deemed that the decision was made in the process of determining the punishment in respect of the grounds for the unfair appeal for sentencing alleged by the appellant, and it is not separately stated that the decision on

failure to make any judgment;

In light of the records, the court below reversed ex officio the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of changes in indictment and re-determined the sentence against the defendant through pleadings. The court below determined that the defendant was guilty on the grounds of changes in indictment.

Therefore, the court below did not separately decide on the grounds for the defendant's unfair appeal for sentencing.

The grounds of appeal were omitted, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance between crimes and the principle of responsibility is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

Other grounds of appeal by the defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal under each subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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