A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Prosecutor’s judgment on changes in indictment in the indictment of this case against the Defendant in the trial of the competent court is currently pending trial on April 5, 2018, which was detained as a special injury offense in the Daegu District Court on the charge of the instant indictment.

On January 25, 2019, the Daegu District Court sentenced “one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a special injury, which was sentenced to two years, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 1, 2019,” and applied for permission to amend an amendment to a bill of indictment with the phrase “the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act” in the applicable provisions of law, and this Court permitted this.

In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which no judgment has yet to be rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the punishment shall not be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity and equality in cases where a judgment is to be rendered

(2) According to the records of the instant case, the Defendant, at the Daegu High Court on September 24, 2014, sentenced him/her to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Composition and Activity of Organizations, etc.), on the grounds that the judgment became final and conclusive on December 11, 2014; the crime of special injury was committed around February 201, 2010, prior to the final and conclusive date of the judgment of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Organization and Activity of Organizations, etc.); and each of the instant crimes was committed after the final and conclusive date of the said judgment.

According to the above facts, each of the crimes of this case constitutes a case where it was impossible to judge simultaneously with the crime of final and conclusive judgment resulting from the above special injury crime.

Therefore, regardless of amendments to bill of indictment, it is the object of the trial of this court.