The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the first instance court sentenced the defendant to eight months after dismissing the defendant's request for the appointment of a public defender, which is not a requisite attorney-at-law, and has detained the defendant in court and appointed a public defender ex officio. It is difficult to see that the defendant's right to receive assistance from a public defender was infringed in the above trial process. Thus, the first instance court's argument that the right to receive assistance from a

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 amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under

In addition, the argument that the sentencing date may be delayed so that it can be delayed can not be a legitimate ground for 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.