The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, the court below was just in finding the victim guilty of larceny among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and it did not err by violating logical and empirical rules and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, the argument that the defendant had no intention to injure the victim E at the time of committing robbery injury by robbery is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted in the final appeal that the defendant had no intention to injure the victim E, or that the court below had no intention to judge ex officio.

Furthermore, the lower court did not err in its determination as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to reject the defendant's mental and physical argument on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and there is no violation

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 sentencing of the

In addition, it does not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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