The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the mental and physical disorder.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to mental disorder.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in violation of the principle of balance of punishment and the principle of responsibility and the principle of discretionary authority by failing to properly examine the circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing while determining the punishment against the defendant is ultimately an argument of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing shall be allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is 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.