In light of the records, it is justifiable for the court below to have rejected the defendant's assertion on the defectiveness of the defendant on the grounds of its stated reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Meanwhile, in the grounds of appeal, the argument that misunderstanding the legal principles on habitual nature of larceny is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant, or by the court below that it is not subject to adjudication ex officio.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may be filed only when the court below rendered a death penalty, an indefinite term, or an imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, an appeal is not allowed to be

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