According to the records, the Defendant asserted in the statement of grounds of appeal that there was a misapprehension of the legal principles as to mistake and coercion of facts or co-principals, along with the assertion of unfair sentencing, and that the Defendant did not clearly withdraw the assertion on the date of the original trial, the lower court should consider the Defendant’s grounds of appeal as the assertion of unfair sentencing, and did not render any judgment as to the above mistake of facts

However, according to the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and the free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to co-principals in the crime of conspiracy and injury by robbery, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the error of omission of judgment did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

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 amount of punishment is unreasonable

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