The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the first instance court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the state of mental and physical loss or arbitrariable intent in the crime of rape and the time when the commission commences or when the crime of intrusion upon residence was committed.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion on mental and physical loss on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical loss as alleged in

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

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