The principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration is to guarantee the defendant's right to appeal or the right to claim a formal trial against a summary order, and in the case of a higher court or a formal trial appeal filed for the defendant only or on behalf of the defendant, the court shall not sentence more severe punishment than punishment already pronounced or notified for the same criminal facts.

In applying the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change, rather than considering the text individually and formally, it should be determined by considering the severity of the punishment under the Criminal Act. Whether the sentence is disadvantageously changed to the defendant should be determined on the basis of the severity of the punishment under the Criminal Act. Furthermore, it should be determined on the basis of whether the defendant is virtually disadvantageous to him, considering the entire order, such as punishment, additional punishment, suspension of execution, period of detention in the workhouse, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1716 decided March 26, 1998; 2012Do7198 decided December 12, 2013, etc.). According to the records, the first instance court determined that the defendant requested formal trial upon receiving a summary order of KRW 2 million and 1.5 million, and that the defendant requested formal trial upon receiving a summary order of KRW 1.5 million, and that the defendant was convicted of both the charges by applying the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 58(3) of the Criminal Act, respectively.

The lower court upheld the first instance judgment as it is.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, since the first instance court rendered a single fine by applying the aggravated provision to the extent that does not exceed the total amount of fines for each summary order, the former Criminal Procedure Act (Law No. 13720, Jan. 6, 2016) even if the entire text of the order is practically examined.