When the appellate court reverses the first instance judgment 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 for the reasons for the unfair appeal for sentencing alleged by the appellant, and the decision as to whether the grounds for appeal are appropriate is separately stated.

failure to make any judgment;

It does not mean (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3035, Jun. 29, 2007). According to the records, the court below reversed ex officio the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of changes in indictment and determined the punishment against the defendant through pleading. Thus, the court below did not separately determine the grounds for the defendant's unfair appeal for sentencing.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds of appeal and the adjudication by the appellate court.

subsection (b) of this section.

Meanwhile, according to the records, while filing an appeal against the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant asserted that the sentencing was unfair on the grounds of the appeal, but the Defendant withdrawn the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts at the first trial date of the court below.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or that Eul did not know the fact that Non-AB-CHACA (AB-CHACA) was a local mental medicine is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the deliberation of the sentencing grounds is ultimately unfair.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed. As such, in the instant case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the Defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, it is therefore.