The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or excessive defense, on the grounds and circumstances stated in its reasoning and holding that it was guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act by changing the form and quality of land without permission, and injury.

As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the meaning of “change in the form and quality of land” under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles on self-defense or excessive defense.

In addition, the argument that there was a mental disorder at the time of the crime of this case is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as the ground for appeal or that the court below did not consider it

In addition, under 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, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the

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