The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Article 35 of the Criminal Act that provides for aggravated punishment for repeated crimes cannot be deemed as unconstitutional (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do2227, Jan. 23, 1990; 2009HunBa63, May 26, 201). Thus, we cannot accept the allegation that the above provision is unconstitutional.

The argument that the judgment of the court below applying Article 35 of the Criminal Act to the defendant is against the principle of accountability is unfair.

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 more minor sentence 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.