주민등록법위반등
Defendant
The remainder of the judgment of the court below against B, C, and D, excluding the application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced the Defendants [1 and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for one year and 6 months of the first instance judgment; 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance judgment; 3 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance judgment; 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance judgment; 3 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance judgment; 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance judgment; 4 months; 3 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the short term of one year, one year and 13 months; 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance judgment; 4 months of a short term of 6 months of a prison labor for the second instance judgment; 4 months of a long term of eight months; and 5 months of a prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the first instance judgment at least 3 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance judgment) are too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. This court held ex officio with respect to Defendants B, C, and D, each of the above Defendants’ respective appeals cases (as to Defendants B and D, the judgment of the court below, and the judgment of the court below, Defendants C, 1 through 3) were consolidated and tried. Each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants in relation to concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, should be punished with a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the remaining parts of the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants except for the application for compensation order among the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants were no longer maintained (in addition, Defendant D was sentenced to a false sentence as a juvenile, but it is apparent that Defendant D was a juvenile under the age of 19, more than once the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, in light of the legislative purport of Article 2 of the Juvenile Act and Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the remaining parts of the judgment of the court below that did not become final and conclusive.