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

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, Article 60(1)2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which is punishable by the same statutory penalty both for sale and purchase, referral of sale and purchase, and medication, cannot be deemed as a unconstitutional provision in violation of the Constitution against the principle of prohibition of double punishment, the principle of statutory punishment, the principle of responsibility, and the principle of proportionality, and thus, the argument that

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not legitimate grounds for

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