[2] In a case where a fine was mitigated but the period of detention in a work site has expired, whether it violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (negative), and in a case where not only the fine was mitigated, but also the period of detention in a work site has decreased, but the standard amount of conversion in a work site has lowered, whether it violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (negative)

[3] In a case where the period of detention in a workhouse of a fine is longer than the long-term imprisonment with labor, whether it is erroneous in determining the period of detention in a workhouse (negative)

[2] If a fine imposed on the defendant was reduced more than the first instance court, it cannot be deemed that the sentence was modified disadvantageously considering the whole, even if the period of detention in the workhouse was higher than the first instance court. If the fine imposed on the defendant was reduced than the first instance court, and the period of detention in the workhouse as well as the fine was reduced, it cannot be deemed that the standard amount of conversion into the workhouse was modified disadvantageously even if the amount of the fine was lower than that of the first instance court.

[3] The calculation of the period of detention in a workhouse as to a fine is limited under Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act, and there is no other restriction. Thus, even if the period of detention in a workhouse as a result of converting the period of detention in a workhouse into the period of imprisonment with labor and a fine, which is one of the multiple-choice methods, the calculation of the period of detention in a workhouse is not unlawful.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the issue of tax invoices without transaction under Article 11-2 (4) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is established on the premise that each tax invoice constitutes a crime. Since all of the supply values of tax invoices under Article 248 of the tax invoices as stated in the judgment of the court below are unclear, it cannot be deemed that specific facts constituting an individual crime to be stated in the indictment are not specified, and therefore, the institution of the public prosecution of this case on this part constitutes a case where it is invalid in violation of Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In light of the records and related

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. Whether the principle prohibiting disadvantageous changes violates the principle

If a fine imposed on the accused was reduced more than the first instance court, it cannot be said that the sentence was modified disadvantageously considering the whole, even if the period of detention in the workhouse was higher than the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 77Do2114, Sept. 13, 197; 80Do2325, Oct. 24, 1981); and if the fine imposed on the accused was reduced than the first instance court, and the period of detention in the workhouse is reduced, it cannot be said that the standard amount of detention in the workhouse was lower than that of the first instance court, even if the amount of the standard amount of detention in the workhouse was lower than that of the first instance court.

Therefore, in the case of this case where only the defendant appealeds the court of first instance ordering the custody of the defendant in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 150,000 into one day when the above fine is imposed and the above fine is not paid, the court below did not err by converting the amount of KRW 50,000 into one day even if the court below converted the amount of KRW 39,80,000 into one day when sentencing a fine of KRW 39,80,000 for the detention period of the workhouse.

B. Whether a misapprehension of the legal principle of the period of attracting a fine for work site

In calculating the period of detention in a workhouse with respect to a fine, there is only a limitation under Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act, and there is no other limitation (see Supreme Court Decision 71Do251, Mar. 30, 1971). In this case, the lower court’s determination of a fine of KRW 39,80,000 as a result of converting the amount of KRW 50,000 into one day and sentenced to a fine of KRW 39,80,000 as a result of determining the period of detention in a workhouse, even if the period of detention is more than two years, a long-term imprisonment with labor, which is one of multiple-choices, can not be said to be an

C. On the issue of unfair sentencing

In this case where the defendant was sentenced to a fine, the reason why the punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)