The judgment below

In light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion on mental and physical disability based on its stated reasoning, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or misapprehension of the legal principle, as alleged in the

In addition, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and argued only mental and physical disability and unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In this case, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains a violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to habitual larceny is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, the lower court did not err in its judgment.

Meanwhile, the argument that the judgment of the court below did not properly consider the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and that there was an error of law, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding of legal principles constitutes the argument

However, 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 punishment

In addition, the argument that the medical treatment and custody should be claimed can not be a legitimate ground for appeal under 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.