Examining the evidence adopted by the first instance court maintained by the lower court, the lower court, which found all of the facts charged, guilty, did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, examining the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the background leading up to each of the crimes in this case, the method of crime, the behavior of the defendant before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of each of the crimes

It is difficult to see that the judgment of the court below does not recognize mental disorder.

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing contains an error of law that deviates from the inherent limit of sentencing discretion is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

In that sense, according to 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, a final appeal is permitted on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is unfair because it is too minor in the instant case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the Defendant cannot be a legitimate

Other grounds for appeal by the defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal under each subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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