If a defense counsel at the first instance court submitted the statement of grounds for appeal without submitting a defense counsel appointment system, but the counsel appointment system was submitted only after the lapse of the period for filing the statement of grounds for appeal, it shall not be deemed

(2) According to the records, the first instance court’s defense counsel filed a statement of grounds for appeal on March 16, 2018. However, even though the Defendant’s defense counsel filed the statement of grounds for appeal on March 16, 2018, it can be known that the written statement of grounds for appeal was submitted to the lower court on April 23, 2018. Thus, the foregoing statement of grounds for appeal cannot be deemed a legitimate and effective defense counsel’s grounds for appeal, and the written petition of appeal does not include specific grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the submission of the appellate brief, omitting judgment, or affecting the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the Constitution.

Therefore, the argument that the part of the judgment of the court below concerning R, S and joint criminal conduct and that there was an error in the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, or misapprehension of the legal principles with respect to the joint criminal conduct with AI, AJ, is not a legitimate ground for appeal since it is alleged in the final appeal that the court below did not consider it as a ground

According 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed

Therefore, 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.