The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below is too unreasonable to punish the defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment on the grounds of sentencing based on its stated reasoning. However, even if the Defendant’s additional consideration of the fact that the Defendant was found to have committed a crime and the mistake is contrary to the judgment, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act for ex officio determination related to the sentence of a suspended sentence provides that “a sentence shall not be imposed on a crime committed during a period of three years after the judgment sentencing imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment was finalized or exempted.” In this context, the term “when the judgment sentencing imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment becomes final” includes not only the sentence, but also the case where the suspended sentence has not elapsed since the judgment sentencing of a suspended sentence became final and conclusive.

However, according to the records, on November 9, 2017, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for the crime of forging private documents at the Suwon District Court, etc., and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 17, 2017, and the defendant committed the instant crime during the period of the suspended sentence, and the court below found the fact that the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence on June 21, 2019, which is before the period of the suspended sentence expires. The court below determined that the defendant constitutes a disqualified person for the suspended sentence under the proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and sentenced the suspended sentence of imprisonment to the defendant.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the disqualifications for probation, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

However, in this case where only the defendant appealed, the punishment of the court below cannot be determined more disadvantageous than that of the court below in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration as provided by Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act.