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 mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, pursuant 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, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

B. 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 Act is not in violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the Constitution which provides the rights of the people to be tried by the Supreme Court, or it cannot be deemed to be an unconstitutional provision contrary to 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.