Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court [Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and ten months; a short of one year and four months (the first instance judgment); imprisonment for a maximum of eight months; a short of six months (the second instance judgment); and Defendant CB (the imprisonment for a period of six months; a suspended execution of two years; a probation observation; and a social service time of 80 hours)] is too unreasonable.

A. The sentence imposed by the first instance court against Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) We examine the judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal by the defendant A and the prosecutor prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant A and the prosecutor.

After remanding by the prosecutor, the appellate court filed an application for amendment to an indictment with regard to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) in the name of the defendant as "special injury" under the Criminal Act, and the applicable legal provision "Article 3 (1), 2 (1) 3, and Article 257 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" was amended to "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" as "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act." This court approved the amendment to an indictment.

This part of the facts charged and the remainder of the facts charged guilty by the lower court are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed. As such, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant in the first instance judgment was no longer maintained.

2) Since the Defendant, as CN’s birth, was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the pronouncement of the lower judgment, but it was apparent that he had reached the age of 19 and reached the age of 19, the part against the Defendant among the lower judgment that sentenced the Defendant’s non-scheduled sentence may no longer be maintained in this respect.

3) This Court held a joint hearing of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below relating to Articles 1 and 2. Each of the offenses against the defendant is a concurrent offense under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.