In light of the purport of the judgment of the court below that only the defendant appealed against this, and the reason for the appeal by the defendant is that the punishment of the conviction is heavy, and furthermore, the appeal by the defendant is a claim for a judgment benefited by correcting a disadvantageous judgment against the defendant. Thus, the defendant cannot have the right to appeal unless the judgment is disadvantageous to him/her, and the defendant, upon the dismissal of public prosecution, has returned to the state without the institution of public prosecution and goes against the risk of conviction and thus, the judgment cannot be deemed disadvantageous to the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do1675, Nov. 8, 198).

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

2. The punishment of the guilty portion among the judgment below on the gist of reasons for appeal is too unreasonable;

3. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the grounds that

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015.