The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, since the defendant and prosecutor are not sentenced to more severe punishment than that of the lower judgment with respect to the case on which the defendant appealed and the case on which both the defendant and prosecutor appealed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4205, Sept. 29, 2005). Furthermore, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court determined that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a prolonged period of two years from the first instance trial to the defendant who appealed in two separate cases, and sentenced the defendant to more minor punishment than that of the first instance trial, rather than that of the first instance trial, and sentenced to more minor punishment than that of the first instance trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do348, Sept. 18, 201; 2016Do3030, Apr. 28, 2016).

Examining the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the foregoing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

Meanwhile, according 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed

A more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.