All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and four months, and by imprisonment with prison labor of eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part concerning Defendant A’s violation of the Act on Promotion of National Sports (hereinafter “instant part of the facts charged”), among the judgment of the court below of the second instance, Defendant A’s violation of the said Act (hereinafter “this part of the facts charged”), this part of the facts charged constitutes double prosecution as it is identical to the facts charged of violating the Act on Promotion of National Sports, which was first prosecuted, or as it constitutes a crime of a single comprehensive offense, and thus, this part

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, 240, 764, 239, confiscation, and 2: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant AA’s sentence (one year of imprisonment) imposed on Defendant A by the lower court (hereinafter “Defendant AA”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A (ex officio judgment) was examined in advance prior to determining the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, and the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the court below against Defendant A was brought to the entire judgment of the court below, and the court decided to hold concurrent hearings of each of the above appeal cases. As long as the facts constituting the above judgment of the court below are in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it should be judged simultaneously and sentenced to a single punishment. Thus, the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the court of first and the judgment of the court of second instance

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles still becomes subject to the judgment of this court, and is judged below.

B. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, Defendant A and the defense counsel alleged in the second instance court that this part of the facts charged is identical to the facts charged in violation of the National Sports Promotion Act, or constitutes double prosecution in relation to the relation of a single comprehensive crime, and the second instance court stated in the said judgment that “1. The allegation that public prosecution against the crime of violating the National Sports Promotion Act is dismissed”.