The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted that the Defendant violated the principle of prohibition of double punishment, along with the unfair sentencing for the grounds of appeal, on the grounds of the appeal, but at the second trial date of the lower court, the Defendant stated in the trial record that “the purport of the appeal is unfair for sentencing, and the purport of the appeal is unfair, and the assertion regarding double punishment under the

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the validity of withdrawal of appeal in this case where there is no evidence to see that such entry in the trial record is an obvious clerical error is not acceptable.

Therefore, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical weakness, by failing to make a day-to day-day, or by violating the principle of prohibition of double punishment cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles on reduction of amount is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

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 may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, even upon examining the record, the lower court did not err by infringing the Defendant’s right to a fair trial, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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