The grounds of appeal purporting that the defendant appointed a defense counsel and applied for the resumption of pleadings by the court below, thereby infringing the defendant's right to assistance of counsel in the trial of the court below, cannot be accepted in light of the records of the trial of the court below.

In addition, the prosecutor's arbitrary exercise of power to prosecute the defendant to give substantial disadvantages to the defendant, thereby significantly deviating from the discretion of prosecution.

In light of the records, even if the prosecutor did not prosecute the multiple criminal acts of the defendant as a whole and charged several times according to the investigation progress, it cannot be deemed that the institution of prosecution in this case significantly deviates from discretionary power.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of the sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

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