The judgment below

Among them, the part against Defendant D is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Ulsan District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The ground of appeal on Defendant C’s ground of appeal is that the argument of incomplete deliberation on sentencing conditions constitutes an argument of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 not less 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 Defendant C, the above assertion to the above purport

2. According to the ex officio determination records with respect to Defendant D, the court below reversed the judgment of the first instance court on the ground that Defendant D was a juvenile in the first instance court, on the ground that the first instance court was punished by imprisonment for a maximum of one year and a short of eight months, and that Defendant D was punished by imprisonment for a term of ten months following the reversal of the judgment of the first instance court.

However, in the case of appeal by the defendant, the appellate court cannot impose more severe punishment than that of the first instance court. In the application of the prohibition of disadvantageous changes, in the case of appeal by the defendant, if the severity between the irregular term and the regular term of punishment, it should be compared with the short term and the regular term of the irregular term of punishment.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 2006). Therefore, even in this case where only the Defendant appealed, it is obvious that only the Defendant had lodged an appeal, the lower court may not render a sentence of imprisonment exceeding eight months, a short-term sentence sentenced by the first instance court.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the court below imposed the defendant 10 months of imprisonment.

In this respect, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant D cannot be reversed.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant D is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and Defendant C’s appeal is dismissed.