The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The argument in the grounds of appeal is as follows: although the defendant stolen ricepos from the victim D's house and used ricepos on the car, the injured party took away ricepos from the above car and went beyond the mixed, and even though the victim was able to knife the back of the car, there was no injury to the injured party or there was no intention of robbery, the court below erred in the facts and found the sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is unlawful.

However, the recognition of facts, the selection and evaluation of evidence is within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

In light of the record, even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the recognition of the facts exceeded the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, in this case where a sentence of imprisonment with labor for less than 10 years has been imposed against the defendant, the argument of sentencing is not a legitimate ground for appeal since Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applied.

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