Even if the court's ruling did not determine any matter claimed by the parties, if it is obvious that such argument will be rejected, there is an error of omission of judgment because it does not affect the judgment

No. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da218, Jul. 10, 2008; 201Da87174, Apr. 26, 2012). According to the records, the Defendant asserted a mental or physical disorder along with an unfair argument in the grounds for appeal, and did not clearly withdraw the claim at the trial date of the lower court, the lower court did not render any judgment as to the mental or physical disorder.

However, examining the evidence, including the duly admitted evidence, it can be known that even though the defendant puts alcohol at the time of each of the crimes of this case, it did not reach the physical and mental loss or mental weakness. Thus, there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the omission of the above judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment’s reasoning, the above assertion constitutes an unlawful argument in sentencing, in substance, when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment that the lower court’s failure to deliberate on the grounds for sentencing violates Article 51 of the Criminal Act or exceeds the inherent limit of sentencing determination in light of the principle

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 more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair, including the above argument, 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.