1. According to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is pronounced, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of an unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. If a judgment imposing imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for a separate crime becomes final and conclusive after the sentence of the lower judgment, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s failure to apply Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is illegal.

The grounds for appeal under Article 383 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, “when a sentence is repealed or changed after the judgment of the court below,” refers to cases where punishment is repealed or changed due to the repeal or amendment of statutes after the judgment of the court below, and it does not include cases where the facts constituting grounds for mitigation or exemption of punishment have occurred without the amendment or repeal of statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5696, Jan. 12, 2007). After the judgment of the court below of this case was rendered, the judgment of the Incheon District Court 2017Da728, which sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Customs Act against the defendant on October 5, 2018, which was 10 months after the judgment of the court below of this case, was finalized

In light of the above legal principles, there is no ground for appeal prescribed in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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