According to the record, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and only asserted mental and physical disability, unreasonable sentencing, and unfair disclosure notification order as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to attempted suspension does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, it is just that the court below rejected the defendant's mental and physical disability and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which ordered disclosure for ten years, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment

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