The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning did not err by misapprehending the facts against logical and empirical rules or by violating the prohibition of analogical interpretation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

The principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration is that a sentence more severe than that of the judgment of the court below shall not apply to a case on which the defendant and the public prosecutor appealed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4205, Sept. 29, 2005). According to the records, it is evident that the court of first instance against the defendant was appealed for the reason that not only the defendant but also the public prosecutor of the first instance court's sentencing is unafford so that the sentencing of the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and thus, in this case, there is no room to apply the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, we cannot accept the ground of appeal to the effect that the judgment below contains an error in violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

Meanwhile, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by violating the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility, which goes beyond the inherent limit of sentencing discretion, constitutes an unfair argument for sentencing.

In that sense, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, a final appeal is permitted, and thus, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.

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