The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the records, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or omission of judgment cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

Furthermore, even if examining the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine or omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

2. According to the records, the court below acknowledged the innocence of part of the judgment of the court below prior to remand in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the remand, and held that the judgment of the court below was more severe than the judgment of the court below prior to remand after combining three cases appealed after the judgment of the court below prior to remand.

Based on these circumstances, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change, contrary to what is alleged in the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, if compared with the first instance court prior to the remanding of the case and each sentence sentenced by the lower court

3. In determining the sentence against the Defendant, the lower court infringed on the essential elements of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility.

The argument that the lower court’s judgment erred by mistake of facts or omission of judgment on the grounds for sentencing constitutes an argument that ultimately contests the sentencing of the lower court.

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 not less 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 sentencing of the punishment

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.