The judgment below

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's argument about mental and physical weakness on the grounds of its stated reasoning is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of deliberation, or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by deviating from the inherent limit of sentencing discretion is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

Meanwhile, if the judgment of the court below has a ground for requesting a retrial, it may be the ground for appeal, and the "when clear evidence is newly discovered" to recognize the innocence, etc. against the person who has been pronounced guilty constitutes a ground for requesting a retrial.

However, the evidence alleged by the defendant on the ground of appeal cannot be deemed to constitute "when clear evidence is newly discovered" that can serve as the ground for retrial, and this part of the ground for appeal is without merit.

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