Defendant No. 1.

A. Each sentence (the first sentence: the imprisonment of 4 months with prison labor for the crimes as set forth in the holding and the third or seven years for the crimes as set forth in the holding, and the second sentence: the imprisonment of 4 years for the crimes as set forth in the holding and the second sentence) of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

(b) Each of the above types, which the first instance judgment of the prosecutor was advanced against the defendant, is improper because it is too unhued.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, the first, and second court rendered a judgment ex officio before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, after completing a separate hearing on the Defendant respectively. The Defendant filed an appeal against the first and second court judgment, and the Prosecutor filed an appeal against the first court judgment, and this court decided to hold the above appeal cases together.

However, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the crimes of Articles 3 through 7 of the judgment and the concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes with the crimes of Articles 38(1) through 3 of the Criminal Act, which are subject to a single sentence within the scope of punishment, for which concurrent crimes are aggravated pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the crimes of Articles 3 through 7 of the judgment and the judgment of the court of second instance

However, the part concerning the crime No. 1 and No. 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance in the judgment of the court of first instance, which held that the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive, is only a concurrent crime with the crime of embezzlement and special larceny, etc., which held that the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive, and the crime of first instance in the judgment of second instance does not constitute a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus

B. On July 23, 2013, the judgment of the court below regarding the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s argument on the sentencing of crimes Nos. 1 and 2 as indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered several times due to special larceny, larceny, etc., and the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum term of three years, and for a short term of two years and six months after being sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) at the Jung District Court