Part on each of the crimes listed in Articles 3 through 6 of the judgment shall be reversed.

The judgment below

Nos. 3 to 6-2 of the ruling.

2. The following matters shall be examined ex officio prior to the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment:

In a case where several facts charged are in a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the defendant shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Do597 delivered on May 9, 1972, etc.). Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment, which rendered a separate fine on each of the crimes listed in Articles 3 through 6 as stated in the lower judgment, is deemed to be due to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act), which applies to cases where only the Defendant requested formal trial against the summary order.

However, in applying the principle of prohibition against disadvantageous change, determination of whether a sentence imposed is disadvantageously changed to a defendant shall be based on the severity of punishment under the Criminal Act, but it shall not be considered individually and formally, but shall be made by considering whether it is not practically disadvantageous to the defendant in light of the overall text of the order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12967, Feb. 11, 2010). Therefore, it shall not be deemed disadvantageous change if a fine is imposed equal to or more reduced than the total amount of fine notified by the summary order.

In the case of concurrent crimes, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to concurrent crimes.