1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, even if the appellate court rendered a concurrent trial of the case against the Defendant, who was sentenced to two separate punishments from the first instance court, and tried in the case and sentenced the Defendant to a more severe punishment than the sentence of the first instance court, the grounds alone do not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do3448, Sept. 18, 2001; 2018Do15416, Nov. 29, 2018). According to the reasoning and the record of the lower judgment, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a more than ten-month imprisonment with prison labor for a separate case from the first instance court, on the grounds that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten-month imprisonment with prison labor for two years and eight-month imprisonment with prison labor, and appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing, after conducting a joint trial of the two cases.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below's measure is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prohibition of disadvantageous alteration as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the incomplete hearing on the basic facts of sentencing.

The argument that Co-defendant violated the principle of equality is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

2. As to DefendantO’s appeal, DefendantO did not submit the appellate brief within the submission period, and DefendantO did not indicate the grounds for appeal even in the petition of appeal.

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