The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the appellate court reverses the judgment of the first instance on the grounds that are not included in the grounds for appeal and renders a self-determination thereof, it shall be deemed that the appellate court has judged the grounds for an unfair appeal for sentencing alleged by the appellant in the process of determining the punishment, and that the judgment

failure to make any judgment;

In light of the records, the court below reversed ex officio the judgment of the first instance on the ground that the defendant is a single concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and determined the punishment against the defendant through pleading. Thus, the court below did not separately decide on the grounds for the defendant's unfair appeal for sentencing. Thus, the court below did not decide on the grounds for the defendant's unfair appeal for sentencing.

Therefore, there is an error of omission in judgment as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

subsection (b) of this section.

2. According to the records, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an omission of judgment as to the defendant's mental and physical weakness is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. The argument that the court below violated the rule of experience or logic in the hearing of basic facts for sentencing, and infringed the defendant's right of defense and deviates from the limitation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence constitutes an unfair determination of 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 appeal.

4. Whether the pleading is combined or not belongs to the court's discretion, and thus, the court below did not combine the case with other cases claimed by the defendant.