Whether the appellate court’s further sentence of a fine violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration while reducing imprisonment;

The judgment of the court of appeal that only the defendant appealeds the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced the five-year imprisonment, and sentenced the defendant to a fine of 1,50,000,000, which was sentenced to a fine of 4 years and a fine of 1,50 years and a fine of 1,50,000, which was sentenced by the court of first instance, violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 3

Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Do1185 decided Nov. 21, 1967 (No. 15 third-class 45) 84Do1958 decided Jun. 11, 1985 (Gong1985, 1026)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo Jong-woo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 93No1413 delivered on August 26, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

The judgment of the court of first instance that only the defendant appealed against the defendant is reversed and sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment and 1,50,000,000 won of fine for the defendant is sentenced to more severe punishment than that of the court of first instance because the punishment of the fine was newly added even if the imprisonment was mitigated, so it violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)