1. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged of the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, but did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of no punishment heavier than punishment, the principle of no punishment penalty, and the principle

In addition, even if examining the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Amendments to Bill of Indictment or by omitting necessary judgment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by infringing the right to defense of the Defendant and the requester for probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing violates Article 51 of the Criminal Act constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As long as a defendant files an appeal against a prosecuted case regarding a request for probation order, the request for probation order shall be deemed to have been appealed.

However, there is no indication of the reason in the petition of appeal and there is no ground for appeal on this part.

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