The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the preparation of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not in a state where he had no ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime, and rejected the grounds for appeal claiming mental and physical weakness.

The grounds of appeal disputing such judgment of the court below are merely grounds for free judgment on the evidence selection and probative value of the court of fact-finding or fact-finding based on it, and even if examining the reasoning of the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In addition, in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment’s reasoning of the appeal that the lower court did not fully consider the sentencing conditions in violation of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, this constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in the instant case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the Defendant, the argument that the determination of the sentence of the lower court, including the foregoing argument, is unfair does not constitute a legitimate

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court erred by applying Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is unconstitutional, is asserted only for the grounds of appeal by the Defendant or for appeal that the lower court did not consider it as being subject to ex officio.