The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if the appellate court conducted a consolidated examination of the case against the defendant who was sentenced to two separate punishments in the first instance trial, and sentenced a more severe punishment than each sentence in the first instance as concurrent crimes, it does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration by itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3448, Sept. 18, 2001). According to the reasoning and the record of the lower judgment, the defendant, in the first instance judgment, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months and six months in the second instance judgment of the first instance, and sentenced to two years in suspension of execution and six months in the second instance judgment of the first instance, on the ground of unfair sentencing, on each of the above first instance judgment. The lower court sentenced the defendant to a concurrent crime and sentenced the defendant for eight months in imprisonment with prison labor.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

In addition, pursuant to 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 more 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 the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the

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