A court which adjudicates on a prescribed concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as "joint crimes") may determine the punishment within the applicable sentencing range of concurrent crimes in consideration of equity in cases where a judgment has become final and several concurrent crimes as prescribed by Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and where a concurrent crime has been adjudicated at the same time. Whether to reduce or exempt the punishment for concurrent crimes belongs to the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8376, Sept. 11, 2008). Accordingly, the court below imposed the same punishment as imprisonment with prison labor sentenced by the first instance court at its discretion, while punishing the crime of this case in which the judgment has become final and conclusive and the crime of concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act has been committed after the latter part of the Criminal Act.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were errors by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

subsection (b) of this section.

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 prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

On the other hand, the issue of whether to allow an appeal for any reason in a criminal case is a matter of legislative policy, and Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of an unfair sentencing, belongs to the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. Thus, the provision of the above Act is not in violation of Article 101 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 101 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, or Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, or it does not infringe on the fundamental rights (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1355, Jul. 11, 1997; 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007).