The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the charges of this case were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intentional or dangerous goods in special injury crimes, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion on mental and physical weakness on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical weakness as alleged in

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and by violating the rules of evidence constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

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