The judgment below

In light of the records, the court below is just to have rejected the defendant's assertion on the mental and physical disorder on the grounds of its stated reasoning and there is no error in the judgment.

In addition, the argument that the defendant did not intend to perform official duties, such as lifesaving, to the 119 fire brigade C is a legitimate ground for appeal, or that the court below did not consider it as an object of judgment ex officio, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even upon examining records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, if the complainant revoked the complaint in the appellate trial, it is not effective as a cancellation of the complaint against the offense of insult which is an offense subject to victim's complaint. Since C withdraws the complaint after the judgment of the court of first instance was pronounced, the cancellation of the complaint is not a ground for dismissing the prosecution in accordance with Article 327 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the grounds for sentencing commitment favorable to the defendant is ultimately an argument of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

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