The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the revised facts charged were guilty.

In so determining, the lower court did not err 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 on the intention of murder, contrary to what is alleged in the

The argument that the lower court erred in violation of Article 51 of the Criminal Act by failing to consider all the conditions of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, the argument that the defendant's act constitutes a attempted suspension or legitimate defense is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged by the defendant that the defendant did not have the right to appeal or to be judged ex officio by the court below.

The defendant committed the crime of this case in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness on the cover of the grounds of appeal.

Inasmuch as the mark was indicated on the item “,” but did not state specific grounds therefor, this also does not constitute 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.