The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free conviction in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legality of arrest of flagrant offenders, the rules of exclusion of illegally collected evidence, and the legality of protective measures under Article 4(1) of the Police Officers Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The argument that the defendant was in a mental and physical state at the time of committing the crime of this case is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant asserted that the defendant was not the ground for appeal or the court below was not subject to judgment ex officio.

According to Article 383 (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 is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where a fine is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable 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.