Since the court below did not properly give an opportunity to agree with the victim, the trial procedure is unlawful.

The argument in the grounds of appeal that the defendant did not properly receive the assistance of a state appointed defense counsel in the course of a trial shall not be accepted in light of the progress of the trial by the court below, the circumstances leading to the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel,

In addition, the argument that the court below erred by failing to reflect the circumstances favorable to the defendant in sentencing and thereby sentenced a heavy sentence constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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, and an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the above assertion in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant is not a legitimate

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