The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

I first refer to the fact-finding of the lower court as to each of the facts charged in this case.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

In light of the records, in this case where it is not possible to find out that the facts established by the court below exceeded the above limit even after examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the above appeal shall not be accepted merely because it criticizes the matters falling under the exclusive authority of the court below.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion on mental and physical disability.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles as to mental disability.

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may only be lodged by death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence was imposed on the defendant, an appeal is not allowed to be filed with the Supreme Court on the ground

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