The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

I first refer to the fact-finding of the lower court as to the facts charged of this case.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

In light of the records, in this case where it is not possible to find out that the facts established by the court below exceeded the above limit even after examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the above appeal shall not be accepted merely because it criticizes the matters falling under the exclusive authority of the court below.

Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may only be filed in cases where the court below rendered death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the grounds for the imposition of punishment too unreasonable cannot

In addition, the argument that the medical treatment and custody should be claimed can not 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.