The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance, the court below’s determination that all charges of this case were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on self-defense or excessive defense.

In addition, the argument that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing each of the crimes in 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

Furthermore, the lower court erred by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility.

The argument to the effect that punishment is too unreasonable is ultimately an argument of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 to the same effect

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