The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below determined the punishment by applying Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act to the instant crime in which judgment became final and conclusive and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is concurrent crimes.

In such a case, in accordance with the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the punishment may be mitigated or exempted pursuant to the latter part of the same Article.

As such, the lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance to handle concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and applied Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and subsequently sentenced the same punishment as the judgment of the first instance, instead of reducing the punishment.

Even if the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the treatment of single concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, contrary to what is 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 with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

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