The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the Defendant asserted a mistake of facts in the statement of grounds for appeal, and even if the first trial of the lower court did not clearly withdraw the above statement of grounds for appeal and the assertion of mistake of facts on the first trial date, the lower court deems the Defendant’s grounds for appeal as the allegation of unfair sentencing and did not decide on the aforementioned assertion of

However, in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s omission in its judgment did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the Defendant sufficiently recognized the fact of the administration of philophones in March 2019 and the fact of the administration of philophones on February 21, 2020.

The argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since the defendant's assertion that it is not the ground for appeal or that the court below did not consider it as the subject of ex officio.

The argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred in violation of the principle of balanced punishment and the principle of responsibility constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be 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.