Whether a fine has been mitigated, but the period of attracting the restitution has expired violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (negative)

In the event that only the defendant appealed, a fine is mitigated, but only the period of custody for the recovery has become effective, it cannot be said that the punishment has been changed disadvantageously.

Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do2114 Delivered on September 13, 1977

Defendant

Attorney (Korean Branch of Law)

Daegu High Court Decision 81No400 delivered on July 10, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the national defense counsel are also examined.

(1) As to the fact that the court below violated the principle of disadvantageous change in the grounds of appeal, the court below sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor and the concurrent punishment of the defendant, and sentenced the suspension of the execution of the sentence to imprisonment with prison labor, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's sentence was changed disadvantageously. In addition, since 36 million won should be converted to 1 day in calculating the period of detention in the workhouse with respect to 18 million won, which is the fine in the court of first instance, the period is 30 days, and the fine in the court of second instance was reduced to 85 million won, but the period of detention in the workhouse was reduced to 300,000 won, but 300,000 won should be converted to 1 day in the calculation of the period of detention in the workhouse. Thus, if the fine against the defendant was reduced to the disadvantage of the defendant, the period of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant cannot be deemed to have been changed disadvantageously compared to the overall period of detention (see Supreme Court Decision 197Do1374, Jul. 137, 197197).

(2) Of the grounds of appeal, the defendant was imported at all without knowledge of the fact that he was suffering from a drug, such as negoal stability, in light of the records as to whether the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, the court below's evidence and fact-finding are justifiable, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is obvious that there is no legitimate ground of appeal in the case of the proposal on the issue of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)