Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A, 2, and 3 of the judgment below shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the lower judgment by Defendant A is too inappropriate.

B. The sentencing of the first and second original judgment against the Defendants by the Prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio judgment (defendant A) prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant A and the prosecutor.

Article 1, 2, and 3 of the Seoul District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2471, 3842 (Joint), 6035 (Joint), 639 (Joint), 197 (Joint), 2191 (Joint), 2679 (fixedest 2679), 2017 Highest 2017 Highest 3493 (Joint), respectively, sentenced the defendant to a separate trial, and the court below sentenced the defendant to a sentence against each of the defendant. The court below decided that the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the third court judgment, and this court decided that the defendant will jointly examine the above appeal cases. Since each of the offenses against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court below's judgment against the defendant cannot be exempted from a single sentence under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, the court below's judgment is reversed within the scope of a single sentence against the defendant under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act.

B. Considering the fact that the prosecutor's improper judgment on the prosecutor's argument of sentencing against the defendant B is not good, strict punishment against the defendant B is necessary.

However, Defendant B’s mistake is divided; Defendant B’s partial crime is in the concurrent relation between the crime of injury for which judgment has become final and the crime of injury after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of injury for which judgment has become final and the group’s concurrent crime under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In addition, considering the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant pleadings, such as Defendant B’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is reasonable.