The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged in the instant case (excluding the part determined as innocence and dismissal of prosecution) was guilty.

In so determining, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules without exhausting all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of facts charged.

Meanwhile, while filing an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant asserted mental disorder along with a mistake of facts as the grounds for appeal, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal as to mental disorder on the first trial date of the court below, and the court below did not ex officio consider the matters alleged in the grounds for appeal

In such a case, the argument that the judgment below did not recognize mental disorder is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below did not consider the elements of sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal can be filed on the grounds

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the above assertion or 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.