The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have convicted all of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ex officio investigation, and the non-ex post facto act of larceny.

In addition, the Constitution does not have any provision except Article 107(2). As to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, belongs to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted to the legislative authority, and thus, the provision of the above Act is not in violation of the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1355, Jul. 11, 1997; 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Accordingly, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal against the defendant is allowed only for a case where death penalty or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for life or for more than 10 years is declared, the argument that the amount of punishment imposed on the defendant is unfair 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.