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 on collection does not constitute 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 has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate

Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds for 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 27 of the Constitution. Thus, the grounds for appeal that the above provisions of the Act are 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.