For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the allegation of the grounds of appeal as to misapprehension of the legal doctrine, on the grounds that Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act does not apply to habitual assaults among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of non-violation of intention, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, in light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the grounds of appeal alleged to the effect that the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act are not properly considered in the judgment of the court below, this constitutes an unfair argument of sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the determination of the sentence of the court below, including the above argument, is unfair, cannot

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