According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts concerning the thief’s intentional act or mental and physical disorder or by misapprehending the legal doctrine is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

B. Although examining ex officio, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, pursuant to 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 more than ten years is imposed, a final appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable 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.