The judgment below

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion on the mental disorder on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is just, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on mental disorder.

Meanwhile, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing and mental and physical disability as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

Furthermore, even if examining the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below violated the principle of liability in determining the punishment against the defendant and violated the rule of experience and logic on sentencing constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing. The appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the argument that the determination of the punishment is unfair 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.