The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Progress of the case and scope of the trial of the court;

A. The progress of the instant case 1) The lower court determined as follows: (a) the charge as stated in paragraph (1) of the not guilty part of the lower judgment [the grounds for the judgment in multiple times] (hereinafter “principal facts charged”).

(2) The Defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. The Defendant appealed on the grounds of the lower court’s judgment prior to the remanding of the case (i.e., the reasoning of the judgment) that included the facts charged (hereinafter “the facts charged in preliminary charge”) as stated in the criminal column of the crime, and sentenced the Defendant to three years of suspended sentence, 160 hours of community service order, and 431,312,054 won of the penalty for one year of imprisonment.

Before remanding, the first instance court accepted the defendant's grounds for appeal and judged the defendant not guilty on the grounds of the main facts charged, and found the defendant guilty on the ancillary facts charged, and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of two years, a fine of five million won, and a community service order of 120 hours for one year.

The Defendant appealed against the judgment prior to the remanding of the case on the grounds that the Defendant exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, and misunderstanding the scope of recommendation of tariff concessions and the designation authority thereon, intent and intent thereof, the effect of accusation by the customs collector on the crime of violating the Customs Act, the legal principles on the validity of changes in indictments, and the principle on the prohibition of disadvantageous changes.

3. The Supreme Court did not err as otherwise pointed out in the grounds of appeal concerning the draft of the party deliberation prior to the remanding, but erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration with respect to sentencing, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, as long as the part of the preliminary facts in the judgment prior to the remanding is reversed, the part of the primary facts in relation thereto shall be reversed together.