According to the records, in the first instance court, the defendant did not request the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel, and in the first instance court, the state appointed defense counsel present together with the defendant on the date of the first instance court's trial and present the facts for the defendant, so the argument in the grounds of appeal purporting that the defendant did not receive any defense counsel in the first and second instance trial proceedings is not acceptable.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the defendant did not commit each crime against the victim H cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, 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

Other grounds of appeal by the defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Furthermore, even in examining records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

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