According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in violation of the rules of evidence or mistake of facts is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the sentencing due to misconception of facts and failure to hear the facts on the basis of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an 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.

On the other hand, in light of the records, the court below did not recognize that the defendant's decision was seriously infringed upon the defendant's right to defense by failing to comply with the defendant's request for perusal of trial records, but did not err in the judgment below that affected the conclusion of the judgment by infringing the defendant's right to request perusal of trial records and

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