송유관안전관리법위반등
All appeals are dismissed.
1. Examining the reasoning of Defendant Y’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below was just in finding Defendant Y guilty of attempted special larceny among the facts charged in the instant case and of violating the Oil Pipeline Safety Control Act due to attempted installation of oil theft facilities, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the commencement of execution as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. According to the record as to the reasons for appeal by Defendant AC and A, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted misunderstanding of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and withdrawal of the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles on the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal.
In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles on attempted suspension cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
In addition, the argument that the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on sentencing grounds and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of balance of punishment, the principle of responsibility and the principle of equality is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.
Therefore, under Article 383 subparag. 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 has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the Defendants is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.