The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on prohibition of double evaluation under Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the principle of prohibition of double evaluation is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the sentencing of the court below is erroneous in infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

Therefore, under 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal

On the other hand, even upon examining the record, there is an error of infringement on the defendant's right to have the assistance of counsel in the procedure of the court below.

subsection (b) of this section.

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