The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of murder attempts, mental and physical disorder, political party defense, or excessive defense.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the lower court’s punishment is excessive, and that limiting the case where Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act can serve as the ground for an unfair appeal of sentencing would infringe upon the constitutional right to trial and the right to equality.

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 101 subparag. 2 of the Constitution, or the constitutional provision that provides the rights of the people to be tried by the Supreme Court, or a unconstitutional provision contrary to the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, the above assertion is merely an unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, under 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Therefore, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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