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, in a case where a defendant appealed and a case where both the defendant and the public prosecutor appealed on behalf of the defendant, so it does not apply to the case appealed (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4205, Sept. 29, 2005). In addition, even if the appellate court tried the case for which the defendant appealed on two separate occasions from the first instance court and tried the case to be concurrent crimes, and sentenced to a more severe punishment than the first instance court's sentence, it does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration solely on the ground that the defendant was sentenced to a more severe punishment than the first instance court's sentence (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do3448, Sept. 18, 201). According to the reasoning and records of the judgment of the court below, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 500,000 won in the first instance court's judgment, and only the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years from the first instance court's judgment and the second instance court's judgment.

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.

In addition, the argument that the court below's failure to deliberate on the sentencing constitutes an unfair judgment.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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