The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A court which adjudicates on concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as "Concurrent crimes") may determine the punishment within the scope of the punishment for concurrent crimes by taking into account the equity between the crimes for which judgment has become final and the concurrent crimes as provided in Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the crimes for which judgment has become final at the same time. Whether to reduce or exempt the punishment for concurrent crimes belongs to the court's discretion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8376 Decided September 11, 2008, etc.). Accordingly, the first instance court did not exempt a person from punishment while punishing a crime under Articles 1 and 2 in the first instance judgment, which is concurrent with the crime of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the lower court upheld the first instance judgment. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance, and only asserted the misapprehension of the legal principles as to unfair sentencing and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act as the grounds for appeal, and did not assert the misapprehension of the legal principles as to additional collection. In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below has legal principles

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below did not consider the reasons to be considered in sentencing constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may only be filed in cases where a death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been sentenced by the original court. Thus, an appeal to the Supreme Court is not allowed on the ground that the amount of punishment is unreasonable.

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