The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. from Possession of Mept Ampia, and violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. from Possession of hemps (mariana).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the investigation of naval vessels.

Meanwhile, the lower court’s argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing contains an error of law in misunderstanding of facts constitutes the allegation 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 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 punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

The Defendant stated in the appellate brief that “the instant crime committed by the Defendant was committed in the state of mental or physical disability (e.g., mental or physical disorder)” and did not assert specific grounds, and it cannot be deemed that a legitimate ground of appeal was submitted as to this part.

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