Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged in the instant case is guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

On the other hand, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on sentencing and by exceeding the limit of sentencing discretion constitutes an unreasonable sentencing.

However, 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 on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law in incomplete deliberation as to mental disorder is not a legitimate ground for appeal, which is alleged in the ground for appeal by the defendant as the ground for appeal or as not subject to ex officio judgment

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