[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which omitted the summary of evidence from the judgment when sentencing a more unfavorable punishment than that of the summary order against the defendant who requested a formal trial, on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the prohibition of disadvantageous alteration

1. Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "No sentence more severe than that of a summary order shall be imposed on a case for which a defendant has requested formal trial." Meanwhile, according to Article 323 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a judgment of conviction must clearly state the facts constituting a crime, the summary of evidence, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes in the judgment of conviction, and where any one of them is omitted in whole in the grounds of judgment while a judgment of conviction was rendered, it constitutes a violation of law that affected the judgment under Article 383 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act and constitutes grounds for reversal (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009).

2. According to the records, the defendant was notified by the Seoul Northern District Court of summary order of a fine of KRW 300,00 with regard to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. in this case (joint injury) and requested a formal trial only by the defendant, the first instance court in charge of the above request for formal trial was acquitted of the defendant, and the prosecutor appealed against the defendant, and the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of assault in relation to the above crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground of the above violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act). The court below reversed the judgment of the first instance court and found the defendant guilty of the defendant as the crime of violence in relation to the above crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint injury). Meanwhile, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as above and stated only

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment, while imposing a sentence more unfavorable than a summary order against the defendant. The grounds of appeal assigning this error are with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)