Examining the circumstances indicated in the record, such as the background of the instant crime, the method of commission of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant had a mental and physical state at the time of the instant crime. Therefore, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

In addition, the ground of appeal that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to sentencing constitutes an unreasonable sentencing argument.

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 is imposed, and an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the above assertion in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant is not a legitimate

In addition, the argument that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to repeated crimes and the principle of prohibition of double punishment is erroneous, is not a legitimate ground of appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the court below did not consider it as a subject of judgment ex officio.

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