The principle of prohibition of disadvantageous changes in the final appeal shall be applied to the judgment of the second instance in which no prosecutor is prosecuted against the conviction of the first instance and only the defendant is prosecuted.

If a public prosecutor is not prosecuted against a conviction of the first instance and only the defendant is prosecuted against a conviction of the second instance, the court of final appeal shall not impose a more severe punishment than that of the judgment of the first instance which is not dissatisfied with the public prosecutor.

Articles 368, 396, 399 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 399 and 424 of the former Criminal Procedure Act

Prosecutor General;

Daegu District Court and Daegu High Court of the second instance;

We reverse the original judgment.

Defendant shall be punished by fine for negligence 10,000.

(2) If a fine is not paid, an amount of 500 exchange shall be converted into one day and shall be confined in the old calendar.

15 days of detention before a judgment in the first instance is rendered shall be included in the period of detention in the old house.

The Prosecutor General’s non-indicted 1’s grounds of appeal are as follows: (a) the Defendant was working for Daegu Do clerk in Daegu 24 years of age and worked for Daegu 4285 years of age; and (b) on April 14, 4288, the Defendant was the head of the general department of the passenger transport company, and (c) on April 14, 428, at the Daegu Gyeong-si Gyeong-ro, Daegu 288, which was the head of the general department of the affairs of the Passenger Transport Corporation; (d) the Defendant (the director of the tax office of Daegu 2 and non-indicted 3 of Daegu 2) made a request to reduce the acquisition tax of vehicles belonging to the Gyeong-si 3, Gyeong-si, the Prosecutor General’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s request for a change in the vehicle acquisition tax for the vehicles belonging to the Gyeong-si 3, 30000,000 won, and there was no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s 10.

It is true that the court of final appeal can not render a more unfavorable judgment than the judgment of the court of first instance because only the defendant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the court of first instance, and the prosecutor did not establish a new prosecution. In this case, since the chief prosecutor of the court of first instance, Non-Indicted 4, who was represented by the prosecutor of the court of first instance, was not guilty, the court of final appeal also should not render a disadvantageous judgment to the defendant than the judgment of the court of first instance. Accordingly, according to Articles 399 and 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the court of final appeal renders a self-determination of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court of first instance. However, if the Supreme Court reverses and transmits the judgment of the court of first instance, the court of final appeal should be interpreted to have received the new judgment of the court of first instance where the prosecutor did not institute a prosecution, and it should be interpreted that the court of final appeal and the court of final appeal should also be reversed the first instance court's new judgment of final appeal to the extent of the first instance.

In light of the purport of the previous decision of the court of final appeal, if a prosecutor appeals against the judgment of the court of final appeal which only the defendant was prosecuted without a public prosecutor's prosecution against the judgment of the court of final appeal, it has been interpreted that the court of final appeal shall take into account the severity of the judgment of the court of final appeal without any difficulty in the provision of Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which prohibits alteration to the disadvantage of the defendant, and that the court of final appeal may impose more severe punishment than the judgment of the court of final appeal of the first instance which is no objection to the defendant's interest, it is reasonable to interpret that the court of final appeal cannot impose more severe punishment than the judgment of the court of final appeal of the second instance which is no objection to the defendant's interest. (1) If the court of final appeal reversed the judgment of the court of final appeal of the second instance and remanded the judgment of the court of final appeal of the second instance without a public prosecutor's first instance, the court of final appeal which applied Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act to the judgment of the court of final appeal is no more than 9 years old and new judgment of final appeal.

Therefore, in the case of Non-Indicted 3 and Non-Indicted 2 of the Daegu City Tax Department, the court below's judgment was reversed, and the judgment was reversed by the first sentence of subparagraph 1 of Article 446 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant made a solicitation to the effect that he would reduce the acquisition tax on the vehicle owned by the Co-Defendant of the second instance trial to Non-Indicted 3 at the same time on July 14, 4288 at the end of July 14, 428, as the person who was in the position of the head of the general department of the affairs of the Gyeongbuk-si Passenger Transport Corporation in Daegu, the court below held that 50,000 won was delivered to Non-Indicted 3 and Non-Indicted 2 of the Daegu City Tax Department, who had performed his duties.

The facts constituting a crime for which evidence is known shall be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account each of the statements written by the suspect of the public prosecutor who can be acknowledged by the statement of the accused in the first instance trial, and the suspect, etc. who conforms to the facts of the trial among the respective interrogation records on the accused, the accused, Nonindicted 2, 3, and 5 of the same non-indicted 5.

The court below held that since the court below's ruling of the defendant in the case of the non-scambing in the law constitutes Article 133 (1) of the Criminal Act, if the defendant is selected as a fine of 10,000, and the defendant does not pay a fine, the court below held that the defendant shall be confined in the old house by applying Article 70 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the defendant shall be included in the detention period of the old house and 15 days out of the detention period before the judgment of the court of first instance is sentenced to Article 57 (1) of the

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice), Justice Kim Jong-ro (Presiding Justice), Justice Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Justice) who is represented by the representative judge who is represented by the representative judge who is represented by the representative judge who is represented by the appointment of the Kim