The principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration is that the defendant and the prosecutor shall not be sentenced to more severe punishment than that of the judgment of the court below in the case where the defendant appealed and the defendant appealed on behalf of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4205, Sept. 29, 2005). In addition, even if the appellate court tried the defendant who appealed on two separate punishments in the first instance trial, and tried to sentence more severe punishment than that of the first instance trial, it does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration solely on the ground that the defendant was sentenced to more severe punishment than that of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3448, Sept. 18, 2001). According to the reasoning and records of the judgment of the court below, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 300,000 won in the first instance judgment, and only the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor in the first instance trial and the first instance judgment in the second instance judgment, and only the defendant was sentenced to more than the first instance judgment in the first instance judgment.

Examining the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the foregoing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

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