The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

After recognizing the fact that the crime of this case was committed in a state of mental and physical weakness, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and sentenced a sentence identical to that of the court of first instance by applying statutes through mitigation of law. In this case, in such a case, the sentence of the court below does not necessarily mean that the sentence itself of the court of first instance ought to be more severe than that of the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4773, Oct. 23, 2003). In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on statutory mitigation under Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, the part of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal stating that “the Defendant committed the instant crime in the state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness (e.g., sobreath or mental or physical weakness)” is only indicated in such assertion, but did not state specific grounds therefor or was accepted in the original trial. Thus, the Defendant’s appeal cannot be deemed legitimate grounds of appeal.

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