All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months and by a fine not exceeding 3,00,000 won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The respective sentences of the lower court (the first instance court: the imprisonment of April and the second instance: the imprisonment of April) are too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the first instance court by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act in violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration prohibits unfavorable alteration by providing that “No sentence more severe than that imposed on a case for which a defendant has requested formal trial shall be pronounced,” and where a case for which a request for formal trial has been made is imposed as concurrent crimes after a combination of cases for which a request for formal trial has been made and other cases are tried together, the sentence imposed or notified shall not be simply compared with the sentence imposed after the combination of cases, but it shall not be simply compared with the sentence imposed after the combination of cases. It shall be determined whether the combined sentence is disadvantageous changes by considering, as a whole, objective circumstances that determine the legal status of the defendant

(2) According to the records, the court below's decision on November 11, 2004 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6784, Nov. 11, 2004). In the first instance judgment against the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, since it is evident that the court below's decision to change the sentence into imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above summary order is disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the contents of the case and the sentence, and all of the whole of the circumstances, are disadvantageous to the defendant, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

B. Each court of original judgment shall review the case separately against the defendant.