Defendant

The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

According to the records on the defendant's appeal, the defendant did not submit a statement of reasons for appeal within 20 days from the deadline for submitting the statement of reasons for appeal, even though he/she received a notice of legitimate receipt of the records of trial from this court by serving public notice on December 12, 2017, after dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below on January 19, 2017.

The petition of appeal contains only the purport that the judgment of the court below is dissatisfied, and there is no reason to ex officio investigation without stating any reason for appeal.

However, the defendant appeared at the seventh trial date of the trial, and appealed for the reason of unfair sentencing.

was stated.

An appellant shall submit a statement of reasons for appeal to the appellate court within 20 days from the date he/she receives the notice of receipt of the records of trial in the appellate court (Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and even if he/she makes a statement in the appellate court on matters not included in the reasons for appeal, such circumstance alone alone has reasons for appeal as

shall not be deemed to exist.

Adjudication by an appellate court shall be subject to reasons for appeal entered in a petition of appeal or contained in the reason for appeal submitted within the above period.

Thus, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed by decision pursuant to the main sentence of Article 361-4 (1) and Article 361-3 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the prosecutor's appeal is simultaneously tried, it shall be dismissed by judgment below.

Since the confession of the defendant is credibility in the confession of the defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor's appeal (no part of the crime) and the telephone records with A, the photo of the Moel site is reinforced evidence, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the

The lower court determined as to the assertion that the Defendant was erroneous in sentencing, among the facts charged in the instant case, at the AC Telecom 201 heading room of the AC Telecom on November 2015, 2015, around 22:00, in order to determine whether the Defendant was guilty or not, the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.