The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, the principle of no punishment without law, and the principle of no punishment without law is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the record reveals that the state appointed by the court below was present together with the defendant on the first and second trial date of the court below, and substantial pleadings were made for the defendant, so the argument in the grounds of appeal that the defendant's right to receive the assistance of a state appointed defense counsel was infringed in the trial procedure

On the other hand, the argument that the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of equality as to the conditions of sentencing by punishing both the defendant and his accomplice on the basis of the degree of participation in the crime, even though the court below's judgment on sentencing should be discriminated against the 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 ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the above assertion or the above argument that the above punishment is too unreasonable is not legitimate

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