The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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 by the above law. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the provisions of the above law violate Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the constitutional provisions that stipulate the rights of the people to be tried by the Supreme Court, or are unconstitutional in violation of the principle of equality (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Thus, the argument that Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional is rejected.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on sentencing is ultimately unfair.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

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