Determination as to whether a sentence has been changed disadvantageous to a defendant sentenced to punishment shall be based on the severity of the punishment under the Criminal Act, but it shall be based on whether the sentence is substantially disadvantageous to the defendant considering the whole order, such as concurrent punishment, additional punishment, suspension of execution, total sum of days of pre-trial detention, period of detention in prison, etc. Furthermore, in a case where a defendant filed an appeal or a request for formal trial and another case are consolidated, and where the defendant is sentenced to concurrent crimes after the consolidated examination, the punishment sentenced or notified shall not be simply compared with the sentence sentenced, but shall be determined by considering the objective circumstances that determine the legal status of the defendant, such as the statutory punishment and sentence for the combined other cases, in whole, and by considering

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6784, Nov. 11, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2013Do3546, May 9, 2013). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court sentenced the Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months for a separate case in the first instance trial, and appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of unfair sentencing, as well as one year and six months for concurrent crimes, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for one year and six months.

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, pursuant to 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 defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable

On the other hand, the Defendant made a statement of the grounds for appeal.