The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion as to the mental and physical disorder while maintaining the first instance judgment that convicted all the facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In principle, the progress of the trial proceedings and the adoption of the application for examination of evidence are matters at the discretion of the court. Thus, even if the court below did not accept the application for resumption of pleadings or the application for fact-finding, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred by infringing on the defendant'

The argument in the grounds of appeal that the defendant violated the right to have the assistance of a public defender is not acceptable, since there is no evidence that the court below's appointment of a public defender was revoked or revised without a defense counsel.

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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The assertion to the effect that the medical treatment and custody can be received cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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