The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and argued for the grounds of appeal and unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below did not recognize the mistake of facts and the defect is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

On the other hand, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, there is no provision except the provision of Article 107(2).

The issue of whether or not to allow an appeal for any reason in a criminal case is not only an issue of legislative policy, but also an issue of Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing belongs to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. As such, the above legal provision cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea or the constitutional provision that regulates the rights of the people subject to a judgment of the Supreme Court or an unconstitutional provision that violates the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). The argument that Article 383 subparag.

In addition, the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing established by the provisions of Article 81-2 of the Court Organization Act are general and objective criteria prepared for the rational sentencing in criminal trials, so it shall be respected when the type of punishment is selected and the sentence is determined, but it shall not have the legal binding force.

(Article 81-7 (1) of the Court Organization Act). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the judgment of the court below is unlawful because it violated sentencing guidelines.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error in sentencing guidelines is ultimately an argument of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for not less than ten years.