Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable to have determined that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged in the instant case, by compulsion of force, and by violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the

In addition, considering the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion on mental and physical disability, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to mental and physical disability

In addition, under 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 permitted. Thus, in this case where a lower sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be

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