The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case of failure to pay a fine, when issuing an order of detention in a workhouse, the amount of fine per day per detention shall be set and the period of detention shall be determined within the limit of Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 70Do1813 Decided November 24, 1970, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9187 Decided September 4, 2014). The lower court’s determination of the period of penal detention against the Defendant within the scope of Article 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014) is justifiable, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in incomplete deliberation on the sentencing grounds.

The argument that there is an error in violation of the principle of responsibility or the principle of unreasonable sentencing is ultimately an argument of unfair sentencing.

However, pursuant 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the defendant’s punishment is too heavy or that the detention period in the workhouse is too excessive is unreasonable is

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