The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a sentence may be suspended on the grounds that the sentence of punishment may be suspended on the grounds that, by denying a part of the crime, the Defendant does not substantially reflect his/her mistake and is also highly likely to repeat a crime in light of the Defendant’s assault and intimidation. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant constitutes “when the alteration of the sentence is obvious.”

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which suspended the sentence against the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the suspended sentence.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one-year suspended sentence for imprisonment with labor for six months and one-year suspended sentence) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the court below decided one year to suspend the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for six months after the suspension of the sentence to the defendant. In light of the purport of the suspended sentence system and the provisions of the Criminal Act, in the case of the suspended sentence, a decision of imprisonment with prison labor, imprisonment without prison labor, etc. to be sentenced is imposed and the suspended sentence itself is suspended. On the other hand, in the case of the suspended sentence, it is clear that the suspended sentence, which is a system that additionally suspends the execution while sentencing imprisonment with prison labor, etc. to be sentenced, cannot be included in the suspended sentence.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which suspended the sentence for one year as to the defendant's imprisonment with prison labor for six months is erroneous in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the suspended sentence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of the legal principles is still subject to a trial.

3. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act provides “A sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than one year, suspension of qualification or fine