In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's mental and physical disorder is just and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing contains an error of law that deviates from the limit of the discretion of sentencing in accordance with the principle of balance of punishment, the principle of responsibility, and the principle of equality, due to a misunderstanding of facts as to the basic facts of sentencing, and the lack of deliberation as to the circumstances on which the sentencing conditions

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the ground of appeal disputing the legitimacy of the legal procedure of the court below on the premise that the court below did not make a request for mental appraisal against the defendant in this case, is without merit.

Other grounds for appeal shall not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal prescribed in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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