The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Upon examining the records, the court below's determination that the defendant is habitually recognized on the grounds of its stated reasoning is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on habituality.

Meanwhile, the argument that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the identity of another person in possession in recognizing a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the court below, or by its authority.

Furthermore, even if examining the judgment below, there is no error as alleged above.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by violating the principle of balance between crimes and the principle of responsibility, which goes beyond the inherent limit of sentencing discretion, 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, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unreasonable

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