In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of special robbery, which is the ancillary charge of this case, for the reasons stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on intimidation in evidence trial or special robbery, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, it is alleged that there was an error of violation of the principle of court-oriented trials, etc. in determining punishment differently from the jury recommendation opinion of a participatory trial. However, it is clear in light of Article 46(5) and (4) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials that the jury's opinion on sentencing does not bind the court.

Therefore, this part of the ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

In addition, even if the appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is selected as the assertion of unfair sentencing, the appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing can only be made in the case where the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed at the original court. Thus, the grounds for the inappropriate determination of the sentence against the defendant

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