The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the instant facts charged were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on relative worship.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant asserted the defect, such as misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds for appeal against the judgment of the first instance, along with unreasonable sentencing, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal, such as the defect, etc. on the first trial of the court below, and left the grounds for appeal only such as misconception of facts and misapprehension

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below did not recognize the defendant's mental disorder is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, there is no error as alleged in the judgment below.

Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below did not recognize mental or physical disability of the defendant, but according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court of first instance recognized mental or physical disability of the defendant and determined the punishment within the scope of the term of punishment for which statutory mitigation has been given. Thus, the above argument that criticizes the judgment of the court

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