The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where several crimes for which judgment has not become final and conclusive are applicable to a crime committed before another judgment rendered by imprisonment without prison labor or more severe punishment is final and conclusive, the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall become concurrent crimes and the punishment shall be imposed separately for such crimes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to concurrent crimes as otherwise alleged in the judgment of the court below against the crimes under paragraphs (1) and (3) of this case, which were committed before and after the final judgment of imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment was rendered, No. 1, 2559, 2017 High Court Order 17 High Court Order 1748 (Joint), 1850 (Joint), 2176 (Joint), 2202 (Joint), 2852 (Joint), 3144 (Joint), and 314 (Joint), No. 1, 259, 2016 High Court Order 259, 2017 High Court Order 17 High Court Order 1748 (Joint), 2176 (Joint), 2202 (Joint), 2852 (Joint), 314 (Joint) and 256 (Joint).

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law in violation of the rules of evidence or in violation of the rules of evidence, or in combination of two cases, and that the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed and a new sentence is rendered after all of the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

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.

Since whether a single pleading is combined or not belongs to the court's discretion, the court below's assertion to the effect that the failure of the case to combine with other cases of the defendant's assertion is illegal or that the case would be tried jointly with other cases is legitimate.