The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court sentenced a fine of KRW 4 million more than a fine of KRW 3 million issued by the relevant summary order, which violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the case for which a request for formal trial was made before December 19, 2017, which was the enforcement date of the current Criminal Procedure Act, on or before the judgment on the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the amended provisions on prohibition of disadvantageous alteration to the application for formal trial do not apply (Article 2 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act), and Article 457-2 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 15257, Dec. 19, 2017) provides that “No sentence heavier than that of the summary order shall be imposed on the case for which the defendant requests formal trial.”

According to the records of this case, on July 28, 2017, the Busan District Court issued a summary order that imposes a fine of KRW 3 million on the facts charged of this case on July 28, 2017, and against this, the Defendant requested a formal trial on August 9, 2017, which was prior to the amendment of the above Act, and the lower court can recognize the fact that the Defendant sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 4 million in the formal trial.

According to the above facts, the court below sentenced a fine more severe than the fine of the above summary order with regard to a case for which the defendant requested formal trial, which is unlawful in violation of the above principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is justified.

3. As such, the Defendant’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

[Discretionary Judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court.