Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles: Of the instant facts charged, the lower court determined that each specific criminal committed a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which was finalized on May 2, 2015, and the crime of damage to property is in a commercial concurrent relationship, and sentenced to acquittal, on the ground that the aforementioned facts charged constitute a final and conclusive judgment.

However, there are substantive concurrent crimes in that both are different in terms of composition requirements or protection of legal interests.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one month of imprisonment and one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles

The term "social norms" means that an act is evaluated as one of the natural conditions of an object, regardless of the legal evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do2731, Feb. 24, 1987; 2005Do10233, Feb. 23, 2007). 2) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below, based on the evidence of the court below, conducted by the Daegu District Court on April 24, 2015 that the defendant committed the same act as the violation of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders due to the violation of the Rules on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Electronic Devices and the violation of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Narcotics, Etc. (Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and Article 2 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Narcotics Control Act (Article 361 of the Criminal Act).