The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted all of the facts charged in the instant case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the damage to property on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the fact that the lower court exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, contrary

In addition, Article 232(3) and Article 232(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a declaration of intent not to withdraw or punish a case in which a crime cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent may be made prior to the pronouncement of the first instance judgment.

The Act stipulates.

According to the records, the victimJ's expression of intent not to punish the defendant is after the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered. Thus, the court below's failure to dismiss the public prosecution in relation to insult and assault among the facts charged in this case is justified.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation of the grounds for appeal against this.

Meanwhile, according to the records, while filing an appeal against the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant asserted the facts for the reasons of appeal and the mental and physical disorder together with the unfair sentencing, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal as to mental and physical disorder at the first trial date of the lower court.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court’s failure to examine mental and physical weakness is erroneous is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred in violation of Article 51 of the Criminal Act or the empirical rule in the determination of sentencing constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the sentencing is unfair only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is sentenced.