A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

A. The punishment of Defendant 2 (six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s appeal of the first instance court (six months of imprisonment) declared by the Defendant is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the judgment of the court below against the defendant was examined and sentenced separately, and this court decided to consolidate each appeal case against the judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below constitutes concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and constitutes concurrent offenses under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent offenses under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, so the judgment of the court below

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the grounds for ex officio reversal, since there are such grounds, and the judgment of the court below is again decided as follows.

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to that stated in each corresponding column of each judgment of the court below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes has the history of having been punished several times for the same crime, each of the crimes of this case was committed during the repeated crime period, and there was no particular measure to recover from damage. However, although the sum of each of the acquired money of this case is the small amount of 36,200 won, the defendant is both recognized and against the criminal facts.