The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the modified facts charged were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, 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

In addition, pursuant 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

Meanwhile, the part of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal stating that “the Defendant was in violation of the Constitution, laws, orders, or rules, or there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles,” and the part of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal stating that “the Defendant committed the instant crime in the state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness (e.g., under the influence of alcohol or the state of mental or physical weakness),” is only stated in such assertion, but did not state specific grounds therefor, or was already accepted by the lower court

Other grounds of appeal by the defendant are not legitimate grounds of appeal under 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.