The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below determined that the defendant was not in a state of mental disorder or mental retardation at the time of committing the crime of this case in light of the process, means and method of the crime of this case, the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime

Upon examining records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mental disorder or incomplete hearing.

On the other hand, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the principle of balanced criminal punishment, the principle of responsibility, and the principle of equality, by misunderstanding facts or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the conditions of sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

Furthermore, the argument that the defendant's right to defense was infringed shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not state it as the ground for appeal or that the court below did not consider it as

In addition, the record does not seem to infringe the defendant's right of defense even if the record is examined.

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