The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of thirty thousand won.

The defendant above.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the lower court's sentencing (limited to six months of imprisonment and fines of 350,000,000 won per day, and 1 million won per day of detention in the workhouse, and 350-day detention in the workhouse) is too unreasonable.

In particular, if the defendant is unable to pay the fine determined by the judgment of the court below and the fine determined by the final judgment of March 10, 2016 (two years of imprisonment and fine of KRW 20,100,000,000 per day, and KRW 2,100,000 per day of detention in a workhouse), he shall be confined to a maximum of 1,350 days (=1,350 days). If the defendant's crime of this case is related to the above final judgment and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the maximum period of detention in a workhouse shall be between 1,00 and 3 years (1,095 days) (1,095 days).

Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, this study examined ex officio.

The lower court determined that Article 70 and Article 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014) shall apply to the detention of the Defendant in the workhouse.

However, with the amendment of the Criminal Act by Act No. 12575 on May 14, 2014, Article 70(2) newly established, stating, “If the fine to be declared is more than KRW 100,000 but less than KRW 500,000,000,000,000 or more, not less than KRW 500,000,000,000, or not less than KRW 1,000,000,000.”

In addition, Article 1 of the Addenda provides that the amended Criminal Code shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation, and Article 2(1) provides that "the amended provisions of Article 70(2) shall apply to cases where a public prosecution is instituted for the first time after this Act enters into force."

According to the records, it is evident that the prosecution of this case was instituted on September 25, 2015, after the enforcement of the amended Criminal Code, and thus, it is against the defendant.