The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court and the first instance court in light of the evidence duly admitted, it is justifiable to find the lower court guilty of injury by robbery among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the purpose of quasi-Robbery, the degree of assault in the quasi-Robbery, and the degree of injury in the robbery, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the injury

In addition, pursuant 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be

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