The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance, the court below’s determination that the conjunctive charge of this case was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to willful negligence in the crime of injury by robbery.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by exceeding the limit of discretionary authority is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, under 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 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 sentencing of the

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