The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, while lodging an appeal against the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant asserted a mistake of facts with respect to the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, but withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts on the date of the first instance trial of the lower court, and only left the grounds of unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal, and only asserted unfair sentencing against the judgment of the second instance court.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by mistake of facts cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and records, the defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment in the judgment of the first instance court and 8 months of imprisonment in the judgment of the second instance, and appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing with respect to each of the above judgments of the first instance. The court below held the above cases as a concurrent crime and sentenced the defendant to 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor.

These measures by the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to concurrent crimes.

The ground of appeal concerning the violation of jurisdiction over the first instance judgment of the first instance among the grounds of appeal is that the defendant raised only to the court of final appeal that there was no ground of appeal, or that there was no ground of appeal subject to ex officio determination by the court below, and thus,

In addition, according to Article 21 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the adjudication shall be made within six months from the date the public prosecution is instituted in the first instance court, and within four months from the date the record is received in the appellate court and the final appeal court, but this is not a mandatory provision, but a decoration provision, and the reason why the above period has not been observed cannot be

In addition, the argument that the detention of the defendant is unlawful cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act independently unless such an error affects the judgment.

Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.