Even upon examining records and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts against logical and empirical rules, or by violating the statutes in the course of arresting or investigating flagrant offenders, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the court below rejected the defendant's argument as to the defendant's mental and physical loss on the grounds of its stated reasoning.

In light of the evidence, the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical loss or responsibility, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 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 has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate

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