The judgment below

The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor's decision that the court below sentenced the defendants (two years of probation and two years of social service in one year of imprisonment, two years of probation and two hundred hours of social service in one year of imprisonment, three years of imprisonment and two hundred hours of social service, three months of imprisonment, three months of imprisonment, and one year of probation in two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination as to Defendant D’s portion.

According to the records of this case, on March 26, 2014, the above defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution on October 13, 2014 due to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint attack) in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on March 26, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 13, 2014. The above crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint attack) and the crime of this case in the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are related to the latter concurrent crimes of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for the crime of this case in consideration of equity in the case of

B. Each of the instant crimes on Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing as to the remaining Defendants is an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the victims intentionally paid an accident by using the fact that the victims had frighten and drive alcohol; and (b) the victims acquired money in the name of insurance money by inducing the victims to conduct insurance management; and (c) the crime is not good; (d) the number of the Defendants’ crimes was committed up to six times, such as 4 times of conflict, and 2 times of fraud; and (e) the sum of the damages therefrom, which are not much significant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake, and is subject to criminal punishment except for the previous conviction of fine due to drinking driving.