(b) Whether the first instance court’s sentence of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment is against the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration to the disadvantage of the sentence of imprisonment by shortening the term of imprisonment;

B. As to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment in the first instance trial, the second instance court’s sentence to shorten the term of imprisonment and the sentence to the sentence is contrary to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

In order to revoke the suspended sentence under Article 64 of the Criminal Act, it shall be limited to the case where the criminal records falling under the grounds for the revocation are discovered after the judgment of the suspended sentence becomes final and conclusive, and shall not be revoked if the judgment becomes final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Order 81Mo44, Jan. 19, 1982). Accordingly, the court below's decision is just in holding that the defendant violated the above provision of Article 64 of the Criminal Act and the judgment of the court below to the effect that the suspended sentence was revoked on Oct. 23, 1984 on the ground that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year for the crime of injury upon existence at the Busan District Court, but the appeal was dismissed, and that there was no violation of the above provision of Article 64 of the Criminal Act and the above provision of the suspended sentence cannot be revoked for the reason that the above suspended sentence was not revoked after the sentence became final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da1744, Oct. 23, 1984).

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)