The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Imprisonment with prison labor for the first offense against the defendant, and for the second offense against the ruling, it shall be sentenced to imprisonment for one month.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant did not assault C around August 19, 2013, the Defendant did not report false facts that the Defendant lodged a complaint against C as a crime of false accusation.

Since the Defendant did not attack D or interfere with the work in the packaging package of D around September 25, 2013, the Defendant did not report false facts that the Defendant filed a complaint against D as a crime of false accusation.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio determination;

In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and it is reasonable to interpret that the sentence shall not be imposed or the sentence shall not be mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity with

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948 Decided October 27, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295 Decided September 27, 2012, etc.). Meanwhile, as long as there is no final judgment that became final and conclusive, the crime committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive, where multiple crimes not yet adjudicated were committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, the relationship between the several crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is deemed to be applicable, and Article 38 of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to apply. Therefore, separate punishment for each crime committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment is determined and sentenced.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do2351, Jun. 10, 2011). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) at the Sungwon District Court’s Sung-nam Branch on February 15, 2013 and on January 16, 2014.