In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment that found all of the facts charged of this case guilty on the grounds as stated in its reasoning of appeal by misapprehending facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on indecent acts in relation to crimes of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (indecent act by blood) without exhaust all necessary deliberations

In addition, after examining the circumstances revealed in the record, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, method of commission of the Defendant, the behavior of the Defendant before and after the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the record of medical records including the Defendant’s brain self-defence video and the result of brain wave inspection, and the surrounding person’s report on the symptoms of the Defendant, the Defendant had a mental and physical state

It is difficult to view that the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations to reject Defendant’s mental and physical claims, and did not err by misapprehending facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder in violation of logical and empirical rules.

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 has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate

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