The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to 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 not less than ten years is imposed, a final appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.

Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, shall be deemed to belong to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. Thus, the above provision of the law cannot be deemed to violate the constitutional provisions that stipulate the right to a trial or to be unconstitutional provisions that violate the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Thus, the argument 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.