According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

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

On the other hand, discretionary mitigation is intended to impose a sentence lower than the lower limit of the applicable sentence determined by statutory mitigation. Therefore, it is justifiable for the lower court to have imposed discretionary mitigation on the crime of death or injury under Article 259(1) of the Criminal Act by sentencing two years after mitigation of mental or physical disability after sentencing two years of imprisonment.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to discretionary mitigation, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in failing to reduce discretionary mitigation by making a hearing may be seen as an assertion of unfair sentencing. However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the above argument in this case where the court below rendered a more minor sentence against the defendant is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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