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 court below erred in misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles as to predictability in the crime of death or injury, or misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to mental disorder is not a legitimate

On the other hand, since the Constitution does not have any provision on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court except for the provisions of Article 107(2), and the matters concerning the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court other than the above provision can be defined by the enemy. Thus, the issue of whether to allow an appeal in a criminal case for any reason is a matter of legislative policy, and the provisions of Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act restricting the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing belong to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted to the legislative authority. Thus, the provision of the above Act cannot be deemed as an unconstitutional provision in violation of Article 27 of the Constitution providing for the right to trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). The argument that Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

In addition, 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 amount of punishment is unreasonable

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