The lower court’s determination of sentencing contains an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the grounds for sentencing, and there is an error of infringing on the fundamental contents of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility, and the lower court’s assertion that the lower court was unlawful because it did not give an opportunity to agree with

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

On the other hand, in light of the records, the court below did not err by infringing the defendant's right of defense because the court below did not respond to the defendant's request for perusal of trial records, thereby infringing the defendant's right of defense.

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