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 asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according 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

The argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, since the Constitution does not have any provision on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court except for the provisions of Article 107(2), matters concerning the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court other than the above provisions can be prescribed by the Constitution. Therefore, the issue of whether to allow an appeal for any reason in a criminal case is a matter of legislative policy, as well as Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act which limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing belongs to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted to the legislative authority. Thus, the above provision of the law cannot be said to infringe the rights or equality rights of the people subject to the Supreme Court

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise 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.