According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the 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.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of omission in judgment on the conditions of sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing shall be allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

On the other hand, it is a matter of legislative policy whether it can be a ground for appeal in a criminal case. Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act which limits the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing belongs to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority.

The above provision shall not be deemed to violate the Constitution.

In addition, since Article 35 of the Criminal Act that provides for aggravated punishment of repeated crime does not violate the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment, it is not reasonable to argue that the provision is unconstitutional.

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