The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, it is not necessary attorney-at-law, but there is no other circumstance that a defense counsel should be appointed pursuant to Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no illegality of violating the procedure for the appointment of a defense counsel or infringing the defendant's right to defense.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in incomplete deliberation on the normal relationship of sentencing 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 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 punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

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