The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Defendant

In addition, inasmuch as misunderstanding the legal reasoning of the grounds for appeal by defense counsel, the defendant was punished by the penalty in Seoul detention center due to the crime of this case, and thus criminal punishment for the defendant is against the principle of non-existence of interest.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, thereby having erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of no interest in the same day.

In light of the fact that the criminal defendant committed the instant crime by contingency as he/she was suffering from severe pain due to vertebrate so that he/she was wrong, and that he/she requested several times to provide medical treatment and counseling to the victim, but he/she was rejected, and that the criminal defendant has an obstacle to damage, etc., the sentence of the court below that sentenced four months to imprisonment is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Before determining the ground for appeal on the ex officio judgment, we examine it ex officio.

According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months at the Seoul Central District Court on May 20, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 29, 2016.

However, since each of the offenses of insult in this case is in the concurrent relationship between the offense of intrusion upon residence for which judgment became final and conclusive and the offense of insult in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment should be determined by taking into account the equity between the case where judgment is to be rendered at the same time

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the argument of misunderstanding the legal principles of the defendant and defense counsel is still subject to the judgment of this court.

The judgment of misunderstanding the legal principles has terminated the execution by receiving disciplinary action under the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act.

Even if disciplinary action under the above law is a kind of administrative order punishment imposed on a prisoner's violation of the code of practice in the prison, it is against the violation of the criminal law.