For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting of the injury resulting from robbery among the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on predictability in the crime of aggravation or injury resulting from robbery, without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, since they differ from the instant case.

In addition, even in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine of due process regarding the claim for inspection and copying of trial records, thereby infringing on the Defendant’s defense or affecting the

Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only the cases on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed shall be allowed an appeal on the grounds

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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