The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding of facts among the grounds of appeal by the Defendant, and that the lower court was unlawful even though the Defendant did not have committed a victim while operating the taxi.

The court of final appeal is a follow-up trial on the decision of the appellate court and not subject to a review by the appellate court, and thus, the grounds other than those alleged by the defendant as grounds for final appeal in the appellate court or those subject to a review by the appellate court ex officio cannot be considered as grounds for final appeal.

(2) The lower court’s defense counsel, on September 6, 2007, asserted the misapprehension of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing in the statement of grounds for appeal, and withdrawn the remainder of the grounds for appeal on the second day of trial of the lower court, and on January 29, 2015, asserted mistake of facts on the following grounds: (a) according to the record, the lower court’s defense counsel asserted unjust sentencing in the statement of grounds for appeal; (b) on the second day of trial of the lower court; and (c) on

Therefore, misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are not legitimate grounds for appeal. Therefore, even if the court below did not make a determination on this, it did not err by omitting judgment.

In addition, since the court below did not ex officio consider the matters alleged in the grounds of appeal as the object of adjudication, the argument that the court below erred in mistake is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

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