A. In a case where the judgment of the court below is reversed by the appeal by only the defendant, and the case is remanded to the appellate court, whether the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration applies to the relationship with the judgment below prior to remand (affirmative)

B. Whether a new sentence of forfeiture while serving a principal sentence violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (affirmative)

A. In a case where the judgment of the court of final appeal is reversed and the case is remanded to the appellate court due to the appeal by only the defendant, the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change is applied to the relationship with the judgment of the court below prior to remand, and the sentence more severe than the judgment of the appellate court reversed

B. It is against the principle of prohibition of change in disadvantage that the original judgment after remands the confiscation that was not pronounced in the original judgment before remands the case.

Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 64Do298 delivered on September 17, 1964 (No. 122 type 17), 79Do2105 delivered on March 25, 1980 (Gong1980, 12754) (Gong12754 delivered on September 23, 1986) (Gong1991 delivered on September 23, 196). Supreme Court Decision 69Do1058 delivered on September 23, 1969

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Ho-ho

Daegu District Court Decision 92No200 delivered on July 16, 1992

The judgment below is reversed;

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where the judgment of the court below is reversed by the defendant's final appeal and the case is remanded to the appellate court, the court below's judgment prior to the remand shall not be sentenced to more severe punishment than the reversed appellate court's judgment on September 17, 1964 because the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change is applied to the relation with the judgment of the court below prior to the remand (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 64Do298, Sep. 17, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 79Do2105, Mar. 25, 1980; 86Do40

According to the records, the judgment of the court of final appeal was reversed and the case was remanded to the appellate court as a result of only the defendant's appeal against the original judgment which was sentenced two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment with prison labor and the case was remanded to the appellate court. After remanding the case, the court below found that the defendant was sentenced two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment with prison labor and the confiscation of the seized articles as stated in the judgment. Thus, it cannot be said that the new decision of the court below which was not sentenced to the judgment of the court below prior to remand did not violate

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.