The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, after remanding the case, the defendant newly appointed a defense counsel at the court below, and the defense counsel newly appointed for the defendant was present at the fourth trial date of the court below and present for the defendant, and the court below concluded the proceedings after renewed the proceedings on that date, and sentenced the judgment on the fifth trial date.

In the proceedings of the court below, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by infringing on the right of defense counsel of the court below prior to remand or by misunderstanding the legal principles

The assertion that the judgment below erred by exceeding the inherent limits of sentencing discretion based on the principle of balance between crimes and the principle of responsibility falls under the allegation 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, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

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