1. In light of the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the circumstances leading to the instant crime and the behavior of the Defendant before and after the instant crime, it is not deemed that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

We cannot accept the allegation in the ground of appeal that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to mental disorder.

2. The court of first instance maintained by the court below's determination of the punishment against the defendant's repeated crime is justified as it is in accordance with Article 35 of the Criminal Act, and there is no unlawful ground as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. The argument that the judgment of the court below erred by deviating from the sentencing discretion is ultimately an assertion of unfair sentencing. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the determination of the sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even upon examining the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged by the Defendant or public defender.

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