The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and argued for misconception of facts, mental or physical disorder, erroneous defense, or erroneous defense as well as misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles as to excessive defense as stipulated in Article 21 (2) of the Criminal Act is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even if examining the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, in light of the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the facts charged in this case was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

Meanwhile, considering the circumstances indicated in the record, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, method of crime, Defendant’s act before and after the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the instant crime. Thus, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s assertion on mental disorder on the grounds of its stated reasoning is justifiable, and there is no error of law

In addition, pursuant 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 more 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

Therefore, the appeal is therefore filed.