The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, a final appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, the argument that the Defendant’s 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 final appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, belongs to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority, and thus, the provisions of the above Act cannot be deemed to violate Article 101 subparag. 2 of the Constitution, etc. Therefore, the allegation of the grounds for final appeal purporting that the above provisions of the Act are unconstitutional cannot

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