The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the law on logic and experience, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the force of interference with duties and the intention of unlawful acquisition in larceny, or the principle of presumption of innocence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of innocence.

Meanwhile, the argument that the defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the crime of larceny and attempted larceny is only based on appeal by the defendant or not subject to judgment by the court below ex officio, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair does not constitute legitimate grounds for

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