Even if the appellate court imposed a heavier penalty than that of the first instance judgment upon the defendant who appealed after being sentenced to two separate punishments in the first instance trial, as a concurrent crime, the appellate court does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration by itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3448, Sept. 18, 2001). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 months in the first instance judgment of the first instance court, and sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months in the second instance judgment of the first instance court, and appealed for 8 months in the first instance judgment, on the ground that the sentence of each of the first instance judgment was unfair, and sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months in the first instance judgment after combining the above cases.

Examining the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the foregoing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

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