The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Upon examining the reasoning in light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion on mental and physical disability, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, among the grounds of appeal, the argument that Article 5-4 (1) and (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes cannot be applied to the crime of this case since the defendant is not acknowledged as a habitor of larceny, is not a legitimate ground of appeal since the defendant's grounds of appeal are alleged as grounds of appeal or the court below's decision not to be subject

Furthermore, the lower court did not err in its determination as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, pursuant to 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 more 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 defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable cannot

Other grounds for appeal by the defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal under each subparagraph of 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.