The prosecutor appealed from the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below only on the ground of unreasonable sentencing, and the rejection portion of the judgment of the court below which the prosecutor did not appeal was separated.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 500,00) imposed by the lower court is too unfilled and unreasonable.

3. The Defendant requested the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel on August 19, 2019, but the trial court proceeded on the same day after August 26, 2019 without making a decision on the request, and dismissed the Defendant’s request for the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel on September 3, 2019 after the closing of pleadings. As such, there is room to deem that the decision to dismiss the request for appointment of a state appointed defense counsel was made after the closing of arguments in the trial, thereby hindering the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defense.

However, in this case where only the prosecutor appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing, there is little possibility that the defendant's right of defense might not be impeded, and the trial court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal as follows, so it would not actually interfere with the defendant's right of defense, and therefore the above procedure progress is not particularly problematic.

Since the defendant did not know even though he was under the suspension of execution and again committed the crime in this case, the responsibility of the defendant is not weak.

However, there are new special circumstances or changes that can be reflected in the sentencing after the decision of the court below, because the defendant reflects his crime, the extent of the assault by the defendant is not severe, the defendant suffers mental disorders and is a basic living recipient.