The appellate court’s consolidated examination of the case against the defendant who was sentenced to two separate punishments in the first instance trial and appealed in the second instance, and then sentenced a more severe punishment than each sentence in the first instance to concurrent crimes is not contrary to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3448, Sept. 18, 2001). According to the record, the lower court’s judgment against the defendant who was sentenced to a separate punishment in the first instance trial for a period of four months and imprisonment for a period of six months and appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing, after conducting a joint examination of the two cases, is sentenced to concurrent crimes, and sentenced to ten months more severe punishment than each sentence in the first instance.

Examining the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the sentence imposed by the court of first instance is merely a total of the punishments separately sentenced by the court of first instance, and thus, the sentence against the defendant cannot be deemed disadvantageously changed.

The lower judgment did not err by violating the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without 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 minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

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