The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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 there is an error of mistake in the judgment of the court below shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misconception of facts or incomplete hearing on the circumstances which are conditions for sentencing is ultimately an allegation 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 more 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 defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable is not

In addition, the issue of whether to allow an appeal for any reason in a criminal case is not only the issue of legislative policy, but also the provision of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing belongs to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted to the legislative authority. Thus, the provision of the above law is not in violation of Article 101 (2) of the Constitution, or the provision of the Constitution that limits the citizens' rights

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138 Decided February 20, 2003, etc.). Accordingly, the ground of appeal that Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

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