상해
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The defendant's assertion that he was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime of this case is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as the ground for appeal or not ex officio.
In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unreasonable
In addition, Article 420 subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "when it is proved by a final judgment that a judge, a public prosecutor, or a judicial police officer who has participated in the original judgment, the judgment, or an investigation based on which the judgment was based, committed an offense relating to his/her duties, has been proved by a final judgment." This refers to cases where it can be viewed that there is a separate final judgment or evidence substituting a final judgment as to the fact that the original judgment was obtained by the said public official's criminal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 96Mo72, Aug. 29, 1996). Even when examining the Defendant's assertion and record in the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment was obtained by a judge who participated in the said judgment and cannot be deemed to fall under "when there exists a ground for retrial" under Article 383 subparag. 3 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.