The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the defendant alleged in the statement of grounds for appeal that each of the crimes of this case was committed in the state of mental disorder, and the court below did not state the above statement of grounds for appeal and clearly withdraw his claim as to mental disorder on the date of the first trial of the court below, but the court below did not consider the grounds for appeal as the grounds for unfair

However, even after examining records, the omission of judgment by the court below is not likely to have influenced the conclusion of the judgment, since the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of each of the above crimes.

Meanwhile, the argument that there is an error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as the ground for appeal or that it was subject to

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the circumstances attached to the sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

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 not less 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 punishment

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