1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that all of the facts charged of this case is guilty is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of

The argument that there is an error of not recognizing mental disorder in the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") consider it as the grounds for appeal or the court below did not consider it as the subject of judgment ex officio.

Meanwhile, the record reveals that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions in the trial proceedings of the court below. Thus, even if the court below did not suspend the trial proceedings against the defendant, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

And with respect to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Constitution does not have any provision except the provision of Article 107(2).

The issue of whether or not to allow an appeal for any reason in a criminal case is not only an issue of legislative policy, but also an issue of Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing belongs to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. Thus, the above provision of the law cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the constitutional provision that regulates the rights of the people subject to a judgment of the Supreme Court, or an unconstitutional provision that violates the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). The argument that Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure