The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, while appealed from the judgment of the first instance, the defendant asserted mental and physical disability along with the unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, but withdrawal of the grounds for appeal against mental and physical disorder during the first trial of the lower court, and only left the grounds for unfair sentencing.

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

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles on the conditions of sentencing constitutes an unreasonable sentencing argument.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the above assertion to the effect that the defendant contests the determination of punishment cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, according to the records, the defendant stated in the notice of the grounds of appeal that "the court below erred by violating the Constitution, laws, orders, and rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment," and did not state specific reasons, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal.

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