The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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

In such a case, a final appeal is not allowed to be filed with the Supreme Court on the ground of a new argument that the lower court did not recognize mental or physical disability.

In addition, 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

In addition, in principle, whether to reduce punishment for concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act can be determined at the discretion of the court which tried on the relevant crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8376, Sept. 11, 2008). The court below’s decision that determined punishment within the applicable scope of punishment for latter concurrent crimes in consideration of equity and cases where the judgment becomes final and conclusive with regard to the crime of attempted special larceny in this case, which is related to latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, is just in the judgment of the court below, at night and at the same time with regard to larceny in residence, and in consideration of equity, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles

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