A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of probation, 160 hours of probation, 160 hours of probation) is too unreasonable.

Ex officio determination (as to the crime of violence), among the facts charged in the instant case, the crime of assault under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act constitutes the crime of assault under Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the will expressed by the victim under paragraph (3) of the same Article.

A declaration of wishing not to withdraw or punish an expression of wishing to punish in a crime of non-violation of will may be made before the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered (Article 232(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Since the absence of an expression of wishing not to punish is a passive litigation condition and constitutes an ex officio investigation, the absence of an expression of intent not to punish should be investigated and determined ex officio even if

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2019Do10678, Dec. 13, 2019). According to the records, the Defendant agreed with D, the victim of the assault committed in the lower judgment on February 24, 2020, which was in progress by the lower court, and submitted a written application for non-prosecution of the above victim’s punishment to the lower court on February 23, 2020, which was prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, the lower court dismissed the prosecution as to the above assault pursuant to Article 32

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of non-compliance with opinion, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In conclusion, the part of the judgment of the court below which rendered a single sentence by treating the violence and the remaining crimes of special violence as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is reversed in its entirety. Therefore, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, the judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as follows.