The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the larceny of the victim D among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning and to have recognized the habituality of the larceny.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by recognizing facts contrary to logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on habituality in the crime of larceny.

In addition, pursuant to 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 more 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 amount of punishment is unreasonable

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