The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of larceny among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and exceeding the bounds of the logical

According to the records, the Defendant asserted mental disorder along with the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the statement of grounds for appeal, and on the first trial date of the original trial of the lower court, the Defendant did not clearly withdraw the allegation of mental disorder, and the lower court only deemed the Defendant’s grounds for appeal to be erroneous and misapprehension of legal principles, and dismissed the Defendant’s appeal without rendering judgment as to the Defendant

However, even after examining the record, the defendant cannot be deemed to have reached the state of mental disability or mental health at the time of committing the crime of this case, and such omission of judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor fine has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

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