Considering the circumstances that led to the Defendant’s crime, the act of the Defendant at the time of committing the crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., it cannot be said that the Defendant was in the state of distinguishing things or losing the ability to make decisions due to mental illness at the time of committing the instant crime.

We cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or finding facts as to the defectiveness.

On the other hand, the court below erred by exceeding the discretionary power of sentencing.

It is ultimately attributable to the assertion of unfair sentencing to the effect that the punishment is too unreasonable or unreasonable.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may only be filed in cases where a death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been sentenced by the original court. Thus, an appeal to the Supreme Court is not allowed on the ground that the amount of punishment is unreasonable.

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