The lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of obstruction of performance

The issue of whether to adopt a motion for examination of evidence may not be examined when the court deems it unnecessary at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947, Jan. 27, 201). Thus, the court below revoked the decision to adopt a witness on the ground that the defendant's application for the witness was withdrawn by the defendant.

Even if it is not illegal, it cannot be considered unlawful.

According 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The Defendant stated in the statement of the grounds of appeal that “the instant crime was committed in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder (the state of mental disorder or mental disorder)” and did not state specific reasons therefor. Thus, this assertion is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

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