According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds of appeal along with unfair sentencing, but withdrawn the grounds of appeal concerning mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial of the court below

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to fraud and false accusation cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by incomplete deliberation on the grounds for sentencing and by mistake of facts is the argument 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 is unfair

Meanwhile, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act restricting the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is deemed to belong to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. As such, the above provision of the Act is not in violation of the constitutional provision stipulating the right of the people to be tried by the Supreme Court in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition, or cannot be deemed as unconstitutional provision contrary to the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

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