Whether the appellate court violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in the event that the appellate court jointly examines the case and sentences more severe punishment than that of the first instance court while serving as concurrent crimes (negative)

It is not against the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration to the disadvantage of a defendant who was sentenced to two separate punishments in the court of first instance and appealed, and tried together the case, and sentenced to more severe punishment than the sentence of the court of first instance as concurrent crimes.

Articles 300, 368, and 370 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 37 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Han-won et al.

Incheon District Court Decision 99No2628, 2001No246 delivered on June 13, 2001

All appeals are dismissed. As to Defendant 1, 80 days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendants guilty of both the facts charged of the fraud in this case and the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and the facts charged of fraud and occupational embezzlement against Defendant 1 did not err by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and thus, the Defendants

2. In addition, the court below's decision does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, since it is against the principle of imprisonment with prison labor for a more than two years, imprisonment with prison labor for a year, with prison labor for a surcharge of two million won, with prison labor for a surcharge of one year and ten million won, with prison labor for a surcharge of one million won and with prison labor for a concurrent crime against Defendant 1 who appealed from a surcharge of one million won and with prison labor for a concurrent crime, and the sentence of a surcharge of two years and a surcharge of one million won for a penalty of two years, with prison labor for a more severe than the sentence of the first instance, and it does not accept

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and as to Defendant 1, part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)