The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The argument that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to sentencing grounds is ultimately an unfair ground for sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

In addition, the argument that the provision of Article 35 of the Criminal Act concerning the aggravation of repeated crimes, the proviso of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the grounds for a suspended sentence is unconstitutional is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as the defendant asserts that the court below did not consider it as a ground for appeal or ex officio.

B. With respect to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Constitution does not have any provision except the provisions of Article 107(2). Since the matters concerning the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court other than the above provisions can be prescribed by the enemy, the issue of how to allow an appeal for any reason in a criminal case is a matter of legislative policy, and the provisions of Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limit the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, belong to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. Thus, the provisions of the above Act are not in violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution, Article 101(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 97Do1355 of the Constitution, and Article 207Do1808 of April 26, 2007, or are unconstitutional in violation of the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1355, Jul. 11, 1997; 2007Do34.