The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Defendant .

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the guilty part) is too unreasonable because the punishment imposed by the defendant A (the punishment of imprisonment of eight months and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the charge on the charge of violation of the defense justice and Defendant A’s attack, but the court below acquitted Defendant of each of the charges. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Improper sentencing (for Defendant A), the lower court’s above sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal against Defendant A and the Prosecutor on the conviction part against Defendant A prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against Defendant A.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the trial court, Defendant A was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor from the Suwon District Court on March 24, 2016 and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 12, 2016.

Therefore, inasmuch as the crime of obstruction of business and the crime of obstruction of business in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A, which became final and conclusive, is in the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a sentence shall be imposed on the crime in the judgment of the court below in consideration of equity with the case to be judged at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and in this regard, the part of

3. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged 1) Defendant B’s violation of the defense justice in Defendant B’s defense. Defendant B, on October 2012, at around 18:00, from the trade name in the middle of the 18:00, Defendant B, who was subject to investigation of fraud due to the suspicion of gambling at the time, expressed that “A had all the circumstances talked about A’s punishment,” and then, the Negging had a view on the work.

H. H. H. H. H. H. by telephone to H.