The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of facts charged and the probative

The Defendant asserts that the provision of Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, violates the principle of proportionality and the principle of responsibility in the determination of sentencing by the lower court, is unconstitutional.

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is included in the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. Thus, the above provision of the Act is inconsistent with Article 101(2) of the Constitution, or Article 101(2) of the Supreme Court’s right to a trial, or is unconstitutional

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007; 2017Do2604, Apr. 26, 2017). Moreover, Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act permits an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing only in cases where death penalty or imprisonment with or without labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years was imposed. Thus, the argument that the Defendant’s 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.