The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a statement made by a person not referring to the Korean language must be interpreted by an interpreter. Thus, in cases where a judgment of conviction is rendered by conducting a trial without attaching an interpreter in making a statement to a defendant not referring to the Korean language, it may be the ground for appeal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9327 Decided January 18, 2008). According to the records, the court below selected an interpreter A, and the interpreter was present at the second trial date of the court below and engaged in interpretation work for A for the witness, and there is no evidence to find the entry as an obvious clerical error in the trial records. Thus, the court below's trial proceedings are lawfully conducted. Thus, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there was an infringement of the defendant's right to defense in violation of Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law is the allegation of unfair sentencing. According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in the case where the court rendered a more minor sentence against the defendant, the argument that the sentencing

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