The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court deemed that the Defendant committed a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case in a state of mental disability and mitigated the sentence against the Defendant.

However, in light of the records, it cannot be said that the defendant reached the state of mental disorder at the time of the crime.

Ultimately, the judgment below cannot be deemed to have erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to mental disorder, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, discretionary mitigation is a case where it is intended to impose a sentence lower than the lower limit of the applicable sentencing determined by law, and there is no need to impose a sentence unless it is otherwise.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Do3608 delivered on March 8, 1994, etc.). Therefore, with respect to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapon, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the lower court did not reduce the amount of punishment when sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months after having reduced the amount of punishment in accordance

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles concerning statutory mitigation and discretionary mitigation for mental and physical disabilities, such as the argument in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition in deliberating on sentencing, such as not reducing discretionary measures, etc. is subject to the assertion of unfair 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 above assertion is

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