For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined guilty of the facts charged of this case and rejected the allegation of mental disability.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on duplicate indictment and

The issue of adopting the application for examination of evidence may not be examined when the court deems it unnecessary at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947, Jan. 27, 2011). Thus, even if the court below rejected the Defendant’s application for witness, it cannot be deemed unlawful, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant violated the Defendant’s right to defense.

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 on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not 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.