The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and pleadings in this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. According to the records of this case’s ex officio judgment pertaining to the sentence of suspended execution, the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul High Court on September 7, 2017 to eight years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 22, 2017; the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul High Court on April 13, 2018 to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months and one year and ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for perjury, etc.; the Defendant committed the instant crime on July 26, 2018; the Defendant committed the instant crime on June 14, 2019 during the execution of the said sentence; the Defendant committed the instant crime on June 14, 2019; the lower court found that the Defendant constitutes a disqualified person for suspended execution under the proviso to Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; and sentenced the Defendant to suspended execution.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the disqualifications for probation, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

However, in this case where only the defendant appealed, the punishment of the court below cannot be determined more disadvantageous than that of the court below in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act.