All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

The defendant 2013 High Order 1905 Case No. 1105 decided on the second instance judgment.

(1) through (3) of this title.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months and imprisonment for a year and six months and two years and six months) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, this Court held that each appeal case against the lower judgment was consolidated and tried, and Paragraph 1 of Article 2013Kadan1905 decided on the first instance judgment against the Defendant.

(1)(6) and (2)(a).

The respective crimes except subparagraph (1) of Article 38 of the Criminal Act, each of the following crimes, each of the other crimes, the second instance judgment and the second instance judgment, 2013, the second instance judgment, 2013, the second instance judgment, 2205, and 2013, the second instance judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the above parts among the first instance judgment and the second

B. Paragraph 1 of Article 2013 of the Judgment on the Second Instance on the argument of unfair sentencing

(1)(6) and (2)(a).

As to the sentencing of the part (1) Sentencing, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable in light of all the circumstances that are the conditions for the sentencing of the instant case, including the Defendant’s character and behavior, the method of the instant crime, the amount of damage, and the circumstances after the instant crime, although the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes in this part during the period of repeated crime, the number of times of the crime is not significant, and the amount of damage is considerable, but the victim M and AI agreed that the Defendant’s wife was the Defendant’s wife, and the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as follows.

[Discied Judgment] Summary of criminal facts and evidence shall be the Court.