1. According to the records on the Defendant’s case, the Defendant and the requester for an attachment order (hereinafter “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 lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that there is an error in violation of the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court below is an unfair argument in sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case 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, in the instant case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the Defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair is not a legitimate

2. As to the claim for attachment order, the assertion that the period of attachment of an electronic device is too long to be unfair is not a ground for appeal as prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis under Article 35 of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Attachment of Electronic Devices, and thus, it cannot be 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.