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 grounds for appeal by the appellant are determined in the process of determining the punishment, and it shall not be deemed that the appellate court omitted the judgment on the legitimacy of the grounds for appeal, on the ground that the appellate court

(2) According to the records, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the grounds for appeal and by failing to render any judgment thereon, thereby infringing on the defendant's right to defense and right to a trial, etc., as alleged in the grounds for appeal, since the court below reversed ex officio the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of a consolidated trial decision, etc., and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the grounds for appeal, the court below did not err by infringing on the defendant's right to defense and right to a trial, etc.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law such as failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the circumstances, which are conditions for sentencing, constitutes an argument 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 more 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 punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

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