1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court has a relation of substantive concurrent crimes with each of the instant stolen goods brokerage crimes.

Considering that it is justifiable to increase concurrent crimes.

There is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes.

2. In a case where a judgment of sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for a separate crime becomes final and conclusive after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered, it cannot be deemed unlawful that the lower judgment did not apply Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5696, Jan. 12, 2007). According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny in Daegu District Court 2017No5325, and filed a final appeal on April 20, 2018, which was after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered, and the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive.

Examining the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the failure to apply Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

3. As to the sentencing of the lower judgment, the allegation that the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending relevant legal principles constitutes an unfair allegation of sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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