1. Where only the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the sentencing is too minor, and the defendant did not appeal, the defendant cannot be deemed as the ground of appeal on the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground of misconception of facts, violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing or violation

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do579, May 28, 2009). According to the records, only the prosecutor appealeds the judgment of the first instance on the grounds that the sentencing is too minor, and the Defendant did not appeal. The lower court accepted the prosecutor’s appeal and rendered a sentence heavier than that of the first instance court against the Defendant.

In light of the above legal principles, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Meanwhile, according to the records, the court below sentenced the defendant who was under detention without a defense counsel in this case, which is not a case necessary for attorney-at-law, and subsequently appointed a state appointed defense counsel following the sentence. The court below did not err by violating Articles 33(1) and 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act or by infringing the defendant's right to defense or right to counsel of the public defender.

3. Furthermore, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, and thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the Defendant, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable cannot

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