All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records on the accused case, the accused and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the lower judgment did not recognize mental disorder.

The allegation that there was an omission of judgment or omission of judgment shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts in sentencing constitutes the argument 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 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 argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

Meanwhile, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is included in the territory of the freedom of formation permitted to legislative authority. Since the above provision of the Act is contrary to Article 101(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea or Article 101(2) of the Supreme Court’s right to a trial, or cannot be deemed an unconstitutional provision contrary to the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). The argument that Article 383 subparag.

2. As to the claim for attachment order, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the risk of recidivism in the lower judgment is not a legitimate ground for appeal, or that the lower court’s decision was not subject to a judgment ex officio, and thus, is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even in examining records, the judgment of the court below is the ground for appeal.