According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment below did not recognize mental disorder is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law such as mistake of facts and incomplete deliberation on basic facts for sentencing is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

Meanwhile, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is deemed to belong to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted to legislative authority. Thus, the above provision of the Act is in violation of the Constitution that provides for the right to a trial or cannot be deemed to be an unconstitutional provision contrary to the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). The argument that Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act violates the Constitution

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.