The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 on August 28, 2013, and thus, the lower court did not sentence more severe punishment than that of the summary order in a formal trial in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, but sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 7 million.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

B. The sentence (7 million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration provided for in Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall not be sentenced to more severe punishment than that of the summary order in the case where “the defendant has requested a formal trial against the summary order.” Therefore, in this case where the prosecutor has requested a formal trial against the summary order, the above principle shall not apply, and a more severe punishment may be sentenced than that of the summary order.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, there are favorable circumstances to the Defendant that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and against his mistake, and that the Defendant’s economic situation appears to be insufficient.

However, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable in light of the following circumstances: (a) the defendant was sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime in 2008; (b) the defendant has been suspended from reporting business on July 1, 2013; and (c) the defendant continued to engage in business, such as continuing to engage in more than three times without reporting business despite his/her control over the violation of the Food Sanitation Act on July 1, 2013.

3. Conclusion.