The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five days.

1. In a case where only the Defendant requested a formal trial against the Defendant, which sentenced 20 days of detention to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

2. We examine the judgment, that is, the provision of Article 457-2 (amended by Act No. 15257, Dec. 19, 2017) of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 15257, Dec. 19, 201) shall not apply mutatis mutandis to a case for which only the defendant has requested a formal trial against the final judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2550, Jan. 15, 199). The provisions of Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act of December 19, 2017 cannot be sentenced to more severe punishment than that of the summary order for a case for which the defendant has requested a formal trial.

In the case where “(i) the defendant has requested a formal trial, a sentence of more severe punishment than that of the summary order shall not be imposed.

(2) Where a sentence heavier than that imposed by a summary order is pronounced on a case for which the defendant has requested a formal trial, the reasons for sentencing shall be stated in the written judgment.

Notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article 457-2, the previous provisions shall apply to cases for which formal trial has been requested pursuant to Article 453 before this Act enters into force, as stated in Article 2 of the Addenda.

Inasmuch as the Act provides that a formal trial is requested prior to the enforcement of this Act, the previous provisions shall apply to this case.

Article 50 (1) of the Criminal Code provides that the severity of the punishment shall be determined by the order of entry in Article 41.

Article 41 of the Criminal Act provides that “The types of punishment shall be punished by death, imprisonment without prison labor, imprisonment without prison labor, loss of qualification, suspension of qualification, fine, penal detention, minor fine, and confiscation.” As such, the judgment of the court below that sentenced a fine is more severe than punishment of penal detention, the judgment below erred by violating the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change

Therefore, prosecutor's above assertion.