For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted of the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on murder.

The argument that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to attempted suspension in the judgment of the court below shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted by the defendant only in the final appeal that there was no ground for appeal or that there was no ground for appeal which the court below

The argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing contains an error of misapprehension of legal principles is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, according to 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on 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.