I first refer to the fact-finding of the lower court as to the facts charged of this case.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

In light of the records, in this case where it is not possible to find out that the facts established by the court below exceeded the above limit even after examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the above appeal shall not be accepted merely because it criticizes the matters falling under the exclusive authority of the court below.

Meanwhile, the argument that the defendant's act constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as a ground for appeal or that the court below did not consider it as an object

Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, the defendant's act does not constitute self-defense or legitimate act.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may be filed only when the court below rendered a death penalty, an indefinite term, or an imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, an appeal is not allowed to be

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