The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is acceptable for the court below to reject the defendant's argument about the mental and physical disorder based on the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law as to the lack of deliberation

In addition, the first instance court of this case (Tgu District Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 44655) did not appoint and inform the defendant of his defense counsel under Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, not in one necessary attorney-at-law, but in the case of the appointment of the national defense counsel under Article 33 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

There is no other error in violation of the statutes regarding the selection of national defense counsel in the first instance trial proceedings.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair 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.