A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A. The Defendant asserted that the part of the facts charged by the lower court that “1 beer’s disease” in the part on the damage to property does not constitute another’s property does not constitute another’s property, but the above part was deleted due to the permission for modification of an indictment in the trial, and thus, the above assertion

The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the records of this case’s concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant, who was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Incheon District Court for the crime of interference with business, etc. on May 30, 2018, may be recognized as having been finalized on September 1, 201

Since each crime of the judgment below against the defendant and the crime of interference with business, etc. of which judgment has become final and conclusive, punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, in relation to concurrent crimes under

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

B. The prosecutor of the amendment to the indictment applied for the amendment to the indictment by changing the part concerning the damage of property to “one beer and one beer and one beer” of the market price owned by the victim H in the facts charged of the judgment below, and the court permitted the amendment to the indictment and changed the subject of the judgment.

Therefore, the property damage part of the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

Furthermore, the judgment of the court below is an ordinary concurrent crime under Article 40 of the Criminal Act with this part of the facts charged and a special injury crime as stated in the judgment of the court below. Since each of the remaining crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below is regarded as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment

3. The judgment of the court below is based on Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing.