1. (1) The first instance court found the Defendant not guilty of the injury by robbery, which is the primary charge, and found the Defendant guilty of the injury by robbery and injury, which is the ancillary charge. (2) The Defendant did not appeal against the first instance judgment, and only the Prosecutor appealed on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts as to the part not guilty by robbery, injury by robbery, which is the primary charge, and unfair sentencing as to the part not guilty by robbery, which is the ancillary charge. (3) The lower court accepted the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing and reversed the first instance judgment, and reversed the first instance judgment, as in the first instance judgment, acquitted the Defendant on the part of injury by robbery, which is the primary charge, as well as the second instance judgment, and sentenced the first instance court to a more severe punishment than

Therefore, the ground of appeal disputing the judgment of the court below on the premise that the court below found the defendant guilty as to the injury resulting from robbery, which is the primary charge, cannot be accepted without further need, since it appears that the judgment of the court below was erroneous.

2. The allegation in the grounds of appeal that the judgment below did not recognize mental disorder is erroneous, is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as it newly asserts in the final appeal that the defendant has the grounds of appeal, or that the court below is not subject to a judgment ex officio.

3. Furthermore, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

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