1. As to the Defendant case, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and 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 physical and mental weakness.

The argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in infringing on the nature of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of accountability is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Defendant

In this case where a requester for an order to observe a protective order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") is sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate appeal.

2. As to the case of the claim for protection observation order, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, has the risk of recommitting the murder crime.

Based on the judgment, it ordered that protection observe for three years.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

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