The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where only the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing and the defendant did not appeal, the defendant may not appeal the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of misconception of facts, violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing or violation of statutes.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do579 Decided May 28, 2009). According to the records, only the prosecutor appealed the conviction of the first instance court on the ground of unreasonable sentencing, and the defendant did not appeal. The court below accepted the prosecutor's appeal and rendered a sentence heavier than the first instance court against the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the court below erred in mistake of facts, violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or violation of law cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In the instant case, which is not a requisite attorney-at-law, even if the court below proceeded without a public defender, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for the appointment of a public defender, thereby impairing the defendant's defense

In addition, the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration is that no more severe punishment than that of the judgment of the court below shall be imposed on a case on which the defendant appealed and on which the defendant appealed on behalf of the defendant. Thus, in this case where only the prosecutor appealeds on the ground of unreasonable sentencing with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below sentenced a more severe punishment than the judgment of the court of first instance

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