The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, the court below was just in finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds set forth in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below 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 principles on the crime of assault or death

In addition, the lower court’s failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the sentencing conditions, thereby infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of accountability, thereby deviating from the inherent limits of the sentencing discretion.

The argument to the effect that punishment or punishment is too unreasonable is ultimately an argument of unreasonable sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment is unfair

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