The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court’s assertion that there was an error of infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balanced punishment or the principle of responsibility in imposing a sentence against the Defendant is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing. In light of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, intelligence and environment, background, power, motive and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the public defender, it cannot be deemed that there is a substantial reason to acknowledge that the lower court’s sentencing for the Defendant is extremely unfair.

In addition, the court below recognized that the crime of murder in this case was low in the state of mental disorder, and sentenced a sentence of 10-year imprisonment with prison labor equivalent to that of the first instance court by applying the law, and by applying the law, while reversing the judgment of the court of first instance, and in such a case, the sentence itself does not necessarily have to be more severe than that of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4773, Oct. 23, 2003); and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to substantial reasons for recognizing that the amount of

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