All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records on the accused case, the accused and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted the misapprehension of the legal principle of unfair sentencing and the defection along with the grounds for appeal, but only left the grounds for unfair sentencing on the first trial date of the lower judgment and withdrawn all the remaining grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below did not recognize the defendant's mental disorder is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, there is no error as alleged in the judgment below.

In addition, a person who has filed an appellate brief may withdraw part of the grounds for appeal as stated in the appellate brief on the date of the appellate trial, and in this case, the appellate court does not have to explain its decision on the grounds for appeal that has been withdrawn in the grounds for appeal. Therefore, the appellate court did not render a decision on the grounds for appeal that the appellate court did not make a decision on the grounds

Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below did not recognize mental or physical disability of the defendant, but according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court of first instance recognized mental or physical disability of the defendant and determined the punishment within the scope of the term of punishment for which statutory mitigation has been given. Thus, the above argument that criticizes the judgment of the court

In addition, the court below's assertion that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the deliberation of sentencing and the method of sentencing in the court of fact-finding by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance of crime and the principle of responsibility in sentencing against the defendant is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing. According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a sentence of death penalty, imprisonment with or without labor for life