The guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the second judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and April and fine for a fine of 300.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The punishment sentenced by the court of first and second instance (the first instance court: imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months, and fine of 300,000 won, and imprisonment of 2 months) is too unreasonable.

The court below found the defendant not guilty of violation of the Immigration Control Act on the ground that the police officer dispatched could not present a passport, because the defendant's name was taken away from the passport, etc. on the foreigner's name.

However, when based on relevant evidence, the defendant did not have a passport prior to the occurrence of the instant case.

1. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in mistake.

The punishment sentenced by the court below in the first and second instances is too uncomfortable.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

As to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the prosecutor filed each appeal against the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and the court of first instance decided to jointly examine the above appeal case

The conviction of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence shall be imposed within the scope of a limited term of punishment imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the conviction of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

The first instance court found the prosecutor not guilty of the violation of the Immigration Control Act while explaining the grounds for the determination of the prosecutor's assertion of mistake in detail.

Examining the judgment of the first instance court closely after comparison with the records, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the intention to refuse to present a passport, thereby not guilty of this part of the facts charged.