Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have determined that the instant facts charged were guilty on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, but did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on injury in the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.), and habitual nature as provided in Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, contrary to what

In addition, examining the circumstances, such as the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, the method of commission of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, which can be seen by the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in the state of mental disorder or mental retardation at

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize mental disorder shall not be deemed to have any error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, pursuant to 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

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