The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance, the court below was just in finding the defendant guilty on the ground that the first instance court's intent to commit robbery was recognized on the ground as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion on mental and physical disability, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the judgment below did not reflect the sentencing factors favorable to the defendant.

The argument to the effect that punishment is too unreasonable is ultimately an argument of unfair sentencing.

However, examining various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of the lower court’s punishment that upheld the first instance judgment that sentenced 25 years to imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendant even when considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the state appointed defense counsel cannot be deemed extremely unfair.

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