The argument that the court below erred in the failure to reduce the number of self-denunciation because the court's arbitrary reduction or exemption of the punishment could not be deemed illegal even if the court below did not reduce the number of self-denunciation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2018, Jun. 11, 2004, etc.). The argument that the court below's failure to reduce the number of self-denunciation constitutes an unfair claim for sentencing, which eventually constitutes an unlawful violation of Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act (the grounds to be specified in the judgment of conviction) concerning the sentencing determination of the court below, is also an unfair claim for sentencing.

However, examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age and character environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be deemed extremely unfair to maintain the judgment of the first instance court that sentenced the Defendant to 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of mistake, misunderstanding of the legal principles as to excessive defense and mental and physical weakness, etc. is alleged by the defendant as the ground for appeal, or by the court below's ex officio as the subject of adjudication, and it does not constitute 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.