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

In such a case, the lower court is not allowed to file an appeal with the Supreme Court for a new reason that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding habituality in the crime of larceny, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding incomplete deliberation on the crime of larceny.

Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, there is no illegality as alleged.

In addition, the lower court deemed that the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder, and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment within the scope of the sentence determined by the discretionary mitigation, on the ground that the Defendant was given a statutory mitigation on the ground of mental disorder.

In light of the records, such measures of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on statutory mitigation of mental and physical disability, such as the argument in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing may be filed only where the court below rendered a sentence of death or imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for at least ten years.

Therefore, it is not allowed to file an appeal with the Supreme Court on the grounds that the amount of punishment sentenced to more minor punishment is unreasonable.

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