The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Review of the transitional records up to the review reveals the following facts.

On May 20, 2015, the Defendant sentenced the Seoul Northern District Court to three years and six months of imprisonment due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury), the crime of extortion, confinement, the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective violence, deadly weapons, etc.), the crime of violence, intimidation, and insult, and appealed on the grounds that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

On August 20, 2015, the appellate court, Seoul Northern District Court reversed the judgment of the court below and sentenced three years to imprisonment (2015No896, hereinafter referred to as "the judgment on review"), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 28, 2015 as an order for the period of appeal.

After that, the Defendant filed a petition for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial. On November 3, 2016, this Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial, and the above decision to commence a new trial became final and conclusive as is, on the grounds that there was no legitimate filing of an appeal within

2. The gist of the reasons for appeal is that the original court’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Before making a judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the contents that "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.)" among the names of the defendants is "special assault" and "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act "Article 261 and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" as "Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act," and this part of the judgment was changed by the court.

However, the above parts and the remaining criminal facts in the judgment of the court below against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, among the judgment below, the scope necessary for sentencing shall be limited to the crimes without any grounds for retrial.