In examining the record, the lower court did not err by infringing on the right to assistance of the national defense counsel, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred by hearing the basic facts of sentencing and by violating the rule of experience constitutes an unfair argument in 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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

On the other hand, the remaining grounds of appeal do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal as stipulated in 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.