For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that determined that the instant facts charged were guilty.

The judgment below

In light of the evidence duly admitted, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on party defense and mental and physical disorder.

Of the grounds of appeal, the allegation that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding substantial authenticity of the suspect interrogation protocol and emergency evacuation, which was prepared by the prosecutor, is alleged to the effect that the Defendant’s appeal is based on the grounds of appeal, or that the lower court did not make ex officio decisions, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate

In addition, according to Article 383, Paragraph 4, Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is allowed to be appealed 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 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.