The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the preparation of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal, which is erroneous in the judgment of the court below, is merely an error of the judgment of the court of fact-finding as to the selection of evidence and probative value which belong to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on punishment for attempted crimes, attempted crimes, and attempted crimes, or by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of

2. According to the records, the defendant could have known that he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below did not recognize mental disorder as alleged in the grounds of appeal and did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment.

3. In determining the sentencing of the lower court, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles on agreements, etc.

The argument that there is an error of law that deviates from the limit of the discretionary authority for sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less 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 determination of the sentence by the court below

4...