A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (No. 1: fine of 2 million won, and imprisonment with prison labor of 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence No. 2 of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of this court concurrently examined the appeal cases against the defendant against the first and second judgment. However, each of the judgment of the court below is not related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act since the final and conclusive judgment was made between the date and time of each crime, and is not related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. The first judgment decision of the court below is sentenced to imprisonment, and the second judgment decision of the court below does not require a punishment as a single sentence as a fine, and it does not constitute a ground for ex officio reversal on the ground that the judgment of the court below

A. We examine the judgment of the court below of first instance. Each of the instant crimes is a contingent crime committed under the influence of alcohol, and the damage therefrom is relatively minor, the defendant reflects the mistake while committing the crime in depth, the victim P and N do not want punishment against the defendant, such as the victim P and additional agreement with the victim P, and the equity with the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the final judgment (a sentence: 6 months of imprisonment).

On the other hand, even though the Defendant had been punished several times due to violent crimes or fraud due to the use of force, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case repeatedly, and the degree of attack is not mitigated. In addition, comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing conditions of the Defendant’s health condition, age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment appears to be within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and is unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's status.