1. A court’s ruling did not determine any matter claimed by a party;

Even if the claim is clearly rejected, it cannot be said that there is no error of omission of judgment due to the lack of influence on the result of the judgment.

(See, the lower court did not render any judgment as to the assertion of mental or physical disorder on July 10, 2008; and Supreme Court Decisions 201Da87174 Decided April 26, 2012, etc. According to the records, the Defendant asserted mental or physical disorder along with the assertion of unfair sentencing in the statement of grounds for appeal, and did not clearly withdraw the assertion on the date of trial of the lower court.

However, even after examining the record, it is evident that the defendant did not reach the state of mental or physical disability or mental disability due to the taking-off of immunity at the time of each of the crimes in this case. Thus, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the above omission of judgment.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted, it did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The court below rendered a sentence after closing the pleadings, even though the defendant requested the appointment of a private defense counsel, when all the closed or closed pleadings belong to the court's discretion.

there is an error in law.

subsection (b) of this section.

In light of the records, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the right to a trial or the fairness of trial proceedings, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3...