The lower court rejected Defendant’s mental and physical disability assertion on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts regarding mental and physical disorder, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, even if the record is examined, there is no illegality in the trial procedure of the court below as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the argument that there is an error in the procedure for arrest of flagrant offenders is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant asserts that it is not a ground for appeal or that the court below is not a subject of judgment ex officio.

The argument that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of the deliberation on normal relations constitutes an unfair sentencing argument.

Accordingly, under Article 383 subparag. 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 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 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.