The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The argument in the grounds of appeal to the purport that the court of first instance and the court of appeal without a defense counsel are erroneous in rendering a judgment without a defense counsel, even if a case requiring attorney-at-law is rendered (proviso of Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

Meanwhile, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the incomplete hearing or the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred by deviating from or abusing the inherent limits of sentencing discretion based on the principle of balance of crime and the principle of responsibility in sentencing constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

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, the above assertion is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed

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