The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether to adopt the application for examination of evidence is not necessary by the court at the discretion of the court

In determining the seal, the examination may be omitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947, Jan. 27, 2011, etc.). Therefore, the lower court did not accept the Defendant’s application for witness.

Even if it is not illegal, it cannot be said to be illegal.

When filing an appeal against the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal, and the lower court did not ex officio decide on the matters alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In such cases, the argument that the national defense counsel did not faithfully state his/her opinion in the first instance trial proceedings is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The argument that the court below made an unfair decision while sentencing is ultimately unfair in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where a fine is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The assertion that the national defense counsel did not faithfully state his/her opinion in the lower court proceeding is not a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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