Examining in light of relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of receipt of phiphones among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

According to the records, in the court below, it can be known that the defendant was appointed as a national defense counsel and defense for the defendant. Thus, even if the defendant did not meet the defense counsel at the court below.

Even if so, there is an error in the trial procedure by the court below.

The defendant's right to assistance of counsel has been infringed upon in the court's litigation procedure even after examining records.

There is no error in law.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below did not properly consider the factors to reduce the sentencing guidelines is an unfair argument in sentencing.

In that sense, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, a final appeal is permitted, and thus, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.

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