A. Each sentence imposed by the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and the second instance judgment: the fine of 5 million won) on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence (one year of imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by the first instance court on the Defendant is too unfasible.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the court of original judgment, Nos. 1 and 2 sentenced the defendant guilty after completing a separate hearing against the defendant, and the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first and second instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings against each of the above appeals cases. Each of the offenses in the judgment of the court of first and second instance against the defendant is a concurrent offense under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and must be sentenced to a single sentence within the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court of first and second instance cannot be maintained.

In addition, on August 26, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 months in prison on September 3, 201 at the Daejeon District Court on the night, intrusion upon residence, larceny, etc. and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 3, 201. On September 19, 2012, the Daejeon High Court sentenced three years of imprisonment and seven years of imprisonment to a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special robbery, etc.) at the Daejeon High Court on September 27, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive in this court. Since the crime described by the second court is in the relationship between the above crime for which judgment became final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a sentence should be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt the sentence, taking into account equity with the case where judgment is to be rendered simultaneously in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the second judgment without considering the latter concurrent relationship under Article 37

3. Accordingly, the court below did not decide on the allegation of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor on the ground of the above ex officio reversal.