The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred by misapprehending the basic facts, the circumstances, and the lack of deliberation, which are the conditions for sentencing, constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

Accordingly, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted based on unfair grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, 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 legislative authority’s freedom of formation permitted. As such, the provision of the above Act is not in violation of Article 101 subparag. 2 of the Constitution or the constitutional provision stipulating the right of the people to be tried by the Supreme Court, or it cannot be deemed that it damages the fundamental rights (see 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.