Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the part of the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, 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 the establishment of the crime of confinement.

In light of the record, even if examined, the lower court did not err by infringing the Defendant’s right to a participatory trial.

The argument that there was an error of mistake of facts as to mental disorder in the judgment below is alleged only in the grounds of appeal that the defendant considered it as the grounds of appeal or that the court below did not consider it as the subject of judgment ex officio, and therefore, it cannot

According to 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

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.