If the court of the second instance considers that an appeal of a decision made by the Supreme Court is groundless, it shall dismiss such appeal by a judgment. However, the present case, which may or may not be appealed to the court of the third instance, involves a prerequisite point of justice on process. Since this is a mere difference in legal interpretation, it shall be resolved in conformity with Article 4 of the Law of the Council of Grand Justices. Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code has stipulated explicitly that cases which are judged by the court of the second instance under Article 61 of the Criminal Code may not be appealed to the court of the third instance. In the present case, the prosecutor did not dispute the articles adapted in the original court ruling but filed an appeal after judgment by the court of the second instance. In addition, this case has no relative relationship to other cases which may be appealed to the court of the third instance because it is not pursuant to Article 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that overruling a judgment is not in conformity with the legal process. As the litigants still dispute their respective degree of guilt under Article 61 of the Criminal Code, the court shall investigate whether the litigants had raised this issue before oral arguments in the court of the second instance were closed. If the litigants had argued during the oral argument that Article 61 of the Criminal Code did not apply to their case, yet the court of the second instance held the opposite opinion and rendered judgment, then the litigants may appeal the case to the court of the third instance.