Since the court's decision to consolidate pleadings belongs to the discretion of the court, it cannot be said that the court below erred by failing to combine the arguments with other cases against the defendant.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by exceeding the limit of the discretion of sentencing in violation of the principle of balance of punishment, the principle of responsibility and the principle of equality, due to the lack of deliberation on the circumstances which are conditions of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

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.

In addition, the argument of requesting consolidation with another case which has been tried can not be a legitimate ground for appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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