The appeal is dismissed.

The judgment below

1. Articles 53 and 55(1) of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation, following the 17th page.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the method of examining the sentencing and determining the sentencing of the fact-finding court and exceeding the limit of sentencing discretion is ultimately an 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 on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 380(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since there is an obvious error in the reasoning of the judgment below, it shall be corrected pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

March 13, 2020