The part concerning the crimes of paragraphs 1, 2-b, 3, and 4 of the judgment shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be held.

A. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant (the crime of paragraphs 1, 2-b, 3, and 4 of the judgment below): Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and the crime of paragraph 2-A (the crime of paragraph 2 of the judgment below: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the contents of the Defendant’s crime, attitude after the commission of the crime, and the records of the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Articles 1, 2-2, 3, and 153 of the Criminal Act provide that the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted when a person who committed a crime without accusation voluntarily surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive.

However, on December 6, 2017, the Defendant led to the confession of the instant accusation on the first trial date, and the Defendant seems to have made a rejection disposition and made a final decision thereon.

Therefore, punishment should be mitigated or exempted for the instant crime. Since the instant crime and the remainder of the instant crime are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the crime under paragraphs 1, 2-2, 2-2, 3 and 3 of the said Article constitutes a case where one punishment should be imposed, and thus, the part concerning the crimes under paragraphs 1, 2-b, 3 and 4 of the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety.

B. In full view of the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s respective allegations of sentencing regarding the crime in Paragraph 2-A of the holding, the lower court’s sentencing in this part seems to have been appropriately determined by fully taking account of all the circumstances, including the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and there are no other special circumstances to change the above punishment.

Ultimately, the sentencing of this part of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair.