Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, additional collection of 100,000 won, and 2: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant by the Prosecutor (No. 2: imprisonment with prison labor for three months) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. As the judgment of the court below against the defendant in the first and second trials, the defendant was sentenced respectively, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below in the second and the second instances, and the court decided to consolidate each of the above appeal cases.

However, according to the records, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on September 1, 2017 by the Changwon District Court on August 24, 2017 due to a violation of road traffic law (dacting driving), and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on September 1, 2017. ② The crime in the judgment of the original judgment on the second appeal is on April 10, 2017; ③ the crime in the judgment of the original judgment on the first appeal is on March 17, 2018.

According to the above facts of recognition, the facts constituting the crime of the first instance judgment and the crime of the second instance judgment against the above defendant are severedd by the above final judgment and do not constitute a concurrent crime as referred to in the proviso of Article 37 of the Criminal Act before and after Article 37, so long as separate punishment should be sentenced, the consolidated trial was conducted.

Thus, the ground for ex officio reversal has occurred

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following changes are examined.

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor

A. Compared to the first instance court’s determination on the lower judgment, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the first instance trial.