The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the Defendant alleged in the statement of grounds for appeal that the facts charged in this case was committed in the state of mental disorder, and even if the Defendant stated the above statement of grounds for appeal on the first trial date of the lower court and did not clearly withdraw his claim as to mental disorder, the lower court did not determine the Defendant’s grounds for appeal on the sole ground of unfair sentencing.

However, even if examining the record, the Defendant did not seem to have been in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime, such omission of judgment by the lower court cannot be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred in violation of the principle of balanced punishment and the principle of responsibility constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable 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.