The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the injury resulting from the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the appeal did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of an unfair sentencing shall be allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is pronounced.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, the argument that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the instant crime is a ground for appeal in the lower court, or a new assertion in the final appeal that the lower court was not subject to a judgment ex officio, and thus, is not a legitimate ground for appeal

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