For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s appeal claiming mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the first instance judgment which found the Defendant guilty of attempted robbery among the facts charged in the instant case and upheld the first instance judgment.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, such as the presumption of innocence.

Meanwhile, 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 not less 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 sentencing of the punishment is unreasonable

In addition, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is included in the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. Thus, the above provision cannot be deemed an unconstitutional provision in violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the provisions of the Constitution that stipulate the citizen’s right to a trial of the Supreme Court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Thus, the allegation in

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