The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The Defendant asserts that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as the grounds for appeal of this case are too unreasonable.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case and the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim F, D and the defendant in the party trial, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the following is ruled again

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and the criminal facts of the defendant recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they shall be quoted by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Application of Statutes

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the relevant Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes: Article 268 of the Criminal Act; Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act; Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act; Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (Amended by Act No. 12987, Jan. 6, 2015);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and the proviso of Article 50 and Article 42 of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Apr. 1,