According to the records, since the court below selected a national defense counsel at the court below and thereafter defense counsel was defense for the defendant, even though the court of first instance sentenced the defendant who was under a judgment of non-detained of the defendant, and did not immediately appoint a national defense counsel after being detained by the court of first instance, and the court below appointed a national defense counsel only before the first trial date.

Even if so, it cannot be said that the trial procedure of the court below is unlawful to the extent that the defense right of the defendant is essentially infringed and that it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation of the grounds of appeal that there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to a violation of Article 12(4) of the Constitution and Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the trial procedure of the lower court.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of punishment constitutes an unfair judgment.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair, including the above argument, is unfair

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