Considering the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the method of crime, the behavior of the accused before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant was in the state of having weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime, and does not seem to have existed beyond this, and thus, the lower court did not err in its judgment that did not recognize the mental disorder,

In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is just to apply Articles 32, 331(1), 330, and 329 of the Criminal Act, not the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, rather than the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and there is no violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the effect of which

On the other hand, the court below violated the principle of balanced criminal punishment and the principle of accountability in sentencing.

The argument to the effect that punishment or punishment is too unreasonable is ultimately an argument of unreasonable 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 not less 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 sentencing of the punishment

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