The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The portion rejected by the court of final appeal on the ground that the assertion in the grounds of final appeal is groundless shall be no longer asserted as to this portion because the final judgment became final and conclusive at the same time as the judgment is rendered, and the remanded court shall not render a judgment contrary thereto. Thus, the defendant cannot make a claim as to this portion as the grounds

The same applies to the case where the lower court, after remanding, partially examined the facts constituting the crime.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant facts charged (excluding the part on acquittal in the grounds of appeal) was rejected in the judgment of remanding the case and the final judgment of conviction was final and conclusive. As such, the instant ground of appeal disputing the judgment of conviction after remanding the case on the ground of misunderstanding of facts, etc., is relevant to the part on which the final and conclusive judgment of the lower court had already become final and conclusive, and thus, cannot be deemed legitimate grounds of appeal.

In addition, pursuant to 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

Meanwhile, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the constitutional provision that limits the rights of citizens to a trial by the Supreme Court or an unconstitutional provision contrary to the principle of equality

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Accordingly, Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional.