The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Although examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of Article 53 subparag. 1 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

A written judgment shall be signed and sealed by a judge (Article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Act), but the signature and seal of a judge shall not be required until the copy of the judgment delivered to the defendant

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3060 Decided June 28, 2007). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there was an error of omission of a judge’s signature and seal on a different premise.

In addition, 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 more 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.

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