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 as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that there is an error of mistake in the judgment of the court below shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, the issue of whether to allow an appeal for any reason in a criminal case is not only the issue of legislative policy, but also the provision of Article 383 subparagraph 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 to the legislative authority

Therefore, the above provision does not violate the Constitution.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138 Decided February 20, 2003, etc.). Accordingly, the assertion 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.