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 misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal

Furthermore, even if the record is examined, there is no error as alleged in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes has lost balance between types of crimes.

It is difficult to see that the above legal provision is unconstitutional, and it cannot be deemed that it goes against the principle of proportionality, the principle of excessive prohibition, the principle of non-prosecution of punishment, or the principle of prohibition of double punishment (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2011HunBa98, 206 (Consolidation) and Supreme Court Order 201Do3898, Jun. 10, 201). Thus, we cannot accept the argument in the grounds of appeal that the above legal provision is unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts as to sentencing constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the determination of the sentence is unreasonable in this case where

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

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