I first refer to the fact-finding of the lower court as to the facts charged of this case.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

In light of the records, in this case where it is not possible to find out that the facts established by the court below exceeded the above limit even after examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the above appeal shall not be accepted merely because it criticizes the matters falling under the exclusive authority of the court below.

Meanwhile, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted only the illegality and unreasonable sentencing in fact-finding as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing may be filed only where the court below rendered a sentence of death or imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for not less than ten

Therefore, in this case where a more minor punishment is imposed on the defendant, an appeal is not allowed to be filed with the Supreme Court for the reason 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.