The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, it is revealed that the court below did not specify the application of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes because it did not reduce or reduce self-denunciation or reduce discretionary mitigation.

A self-denunciation is merely a reason for voluntary reduction and exemption, and it is merely a reason for discretionary reduction and exemption, and it was not a reason for discretionary reduction and exemption.

Even if it cannot be deemed illegal, and the mitigation or discretionary mitigation is intended to impose a sentence lower than the lower limit of the applicable sentencing. Therefore, it is not necessary to exempt the case as in this case.

Therefore, the lower court did not err by violating Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, 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 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 cannot be

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