Defendant

B Imprisonment for two years.

A. Defendant A: The punishment of the original adjudication resolution (no. 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B: The punishment of the original adjudication resolution (one year and ten months of imprisonment) and the punishment of the second adjudication resolution (six months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

2. According to the arguments and records of the instant case regarding Defendant A’s grounds for appeal, the judgment of the first instance court appears to have been properly rendered by fully considering the various sentencing grounds alleged by Defendant A, and there is no special circumstance to ex post facto change the sentencing. Therefore, Defendant A’s allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The appellate case against Defendant B was consolidated in the judgment of the court below at the ex officio reversal following the consolidation with Defendant B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant B and the part against Defendant B in the judgment of the court of second instance constituted concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part against Defendant B among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained any more.

4. In conclusion, Defendant A’s appeal is without merit and is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Defendant B is subject to ex officio reversal following the consolidation. Thus, the part concerning Defendant B and the judgment of the court of first instance among the judgment below pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is reversed, and the judgment of the court below is all reversed, and the judgment of the court below is ruled as follows through pleadings (Provided, That the judgment of the court of first instance is clearly erroneous holding office of “2 million won,” and the judgment of the court of second instance is corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, since the error of “2 million won,” among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning Defendant B and the reasoning that the judgment of the court of second instance is again used for the judgment of the court of second instance, and the summary of facts and evidence related thereto are identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below.