The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment based on evidence, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, but did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on self-defense, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on self-defense.

In addition, pursuant 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, and thus, in this case where a fine has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable

Meanwhile, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act limiting the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is deemed to fall under the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. Thus, the above provision of the Act is inconsistent with Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the Constitution providing the right of citizens to a trial by the Supreme Court or is unconstitutional provision contrary to the principle of equality.

Therefore, we cannot accept the ground of appeal that Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional.

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