2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s Dop case, and the above Defendant recognized all of his errors and reflects them in the trial, and Article 1-A of the decision of the court below.

On October 22, 2009 and April 3, 2010, the crimes described in each paragraph are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and the crime of interference with business, etc., which became final and conclusive by each judgment, and thus, the equality in cases where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously with the above crimes should be considered. Co-defendant K, an accomplice, of the original judgment, is the first-

There are circumstances such as the agreement with the victim C of the joint injury as stated in paragraph (1), that the above defendant paid KRW 200,000 to the victim X for the recovery of damage and damage at the investigation agency, and paid KRW 90,000 to the victim X for the damage and additional KRW 90,000 in the trial. The defendant did not have relatively heavy participation in the joint injury and joint assault crime, and that there is father in the above defendant. However, although the records of the above defendant's protective disposition and punishment for the same crime are more than 10 times and more than 5 times, the above defendant committed the crime of property damage as stated in Article 3 of the judgment of the court below, even though the above defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to the crime of injury and the crime of interference with business, etc., and again committed the crime of property damage in Article 3 of the judgment of the court below during the period of the repeated crime, the victim C's degree of injury and all other factors constituting the conditions of the punishment prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the above defendant cannot be deemed unfair.

B. Defendant C’s murder, and the above Defendant.