No. 1 of the Judgment

A. Article 1-2(1) of the Judgment

(a) No. 1 of the holding;

(a)the crime of candidateship and section 1-3 of its ruling;

(a) (i) No. 1 of the Judgment;

A. As to the crimes of Doshed and the crimes of No. 2 in holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two months, and

A. Article 1-2(1) of the Judgment

(a) No. 1 of the holding;

(a)with respect to the crime of challenge and the crime of Category 1 B in its holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two months or more; and

2. The fact that the defendant had the ability to punish him/her for the same kind of crime on several occasions and that he/she again commits several offenses while being under the suspension of execution is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, with respect to crimes after a final and conclusive judgment, the defendant paid a certain amount of money to M who is the victim of injury in the trial, and agreed that the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish the defendant, and the defendant has agreed with the victims of the remaining crimes, the defendant has been released in December after completion of the term of punishment and supports his/her mother and is currently engaged in his/her occupation in his/her occupation, and there is a possibility that the defendant should resume six months after the lapse of the previous suspended execution when sentenced to punishment for the crime after the final and conclusive judgment, and in full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, the defendant's argument on unfair sentencing is reasonable.

However, the first decision of the court below prior to the final judgment

A. (1) As to the crimes of (2) and (2) of the judgment, the fact that the defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime several times, and the above sentencing conditions do not seem to be too unreasonable even if comprehensively considering the above sentencing conditions.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below No. 1

A. Article 1-2(1) of the Judgment

(a) No. 1 of the holding;

A. The Defendant’s appeal against the offense of candidateship and the offense of No. 1 B in its holding is with merit, and pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.