The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a joint principal offender.

The argument that there is an error of law that does not guarantee the right to appoint counsel in the judgment of the first instance, is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since the defendant alleged that it was the ground for appeal, or that the court below did not have been subject to a judgment ex officio.

In addition, even if examining the record, the first deliberation proceeding did not infringe the defendant's right to defense, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 383 (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 is imposed, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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