The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of murder among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. Contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or by misapprehending

In addition, considering the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion on mental and physical disability, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, even in a case where self-regulation is recognized, the court is merely able to voluntarily reduce or exempt punishment, and even if the court below did not reduce self-regulation, it cannot be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2018, Jun. 11, 2004). The argument that the court below’s judgment did not recognize the number of self-regulation of the

However, in full view of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age and behavior intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, history of the crime, motive and consequence of the crime of this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances asserted in the ground of appeal, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s determination of punishment is extremely unfair, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to 22 years of imprisonment.

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