In full view of the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, including the background of the instant crime, the method of crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was in a habitual condition at the time of the instant crime. Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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