1. According to the records on the Defendant case, the Defendant and the claimant for the observation order of protection (hereinafter “Defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and only asserted the illegality of sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 (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, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate appeal.

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

Based on the judgment, the first instance judgment ordering the observation of protection for three years was maintained.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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