The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) The crime of mistake of facts (an attempted attempted part) was committed by M and the Defendant did not participate in the crime. 2) The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair punishment)’s sentence of the lower court (a prison term of 2 years of suspended execution in October, 160 hours of community service order, 40 hours of narcotics treatment order, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of ex officio determination (the trial records 316-356 pages), the Defendant’s judgment was finalized on November 16, 2018 on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the imprisonment of two years and six months for marijuana, etc.) at the Busan District Court, which was sentenced on January 18, 2019. ② On May 10, 2019, the judgment was finalized on May 18, 2019 upon the suspension of the execution of the imprisonment of six months at the Busan District Court for fraud, which was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of six months for fraud; ② the crime of the previous conviction was committed before the final judgment of the previous conviction.

Therefore, in all of the crimes of this case and the crimes for which each judgment became final and conclusive, in accordance with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a sentence shall be imposed on each of the crimes of this case in consideration of equity and equity in the case where each of the crimes of this case and each of the above judgments are concurrently judged in accordance with Article 39(

However, the court below explained only the criminal records in the part on the "criminal records" and "application of statutes" and the part on the "compactary treatment" and "the reasons for the concurrent punishment."

Therefore, the court below cannot be deemed to have sentenced to punishment for each of the crimes of this case in consideration of equity and the concurrent judgment of each of the above crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Such measures by the court below shall be deemed to be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to latter concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's mistake of facts.