All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

As to the crimes of "2017 No. 1168" in the judgment of the defendant, a fine of KRW 1,00,000 shall be decided.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the first instance judgment of “2017No. 1168” (Sentencing) is too unreasonable. The sentencing of “1 million won” is too unreasonable.

B. Although the Defendant and the Defendant’s pro-Japanese KOO 2017No. 2416 referred to the victims that they should report the victims’ thief to the police, the victims did not intend to have the victims return their vehicles to the owner. However, the victims attempted to have the victims return their vehicles to the owner, and the victims C attempted to have the victims returned their vehicles to the owner first, provided the victims with accommodation and accommodation, and requested the victims to look at the other individuals’ house. Therefore, there was no fact that the Defendant detained the victims.

Nevertheless, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the judgment of the second instance court which found the defendant guilty of the charge of detention of this case.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

A. According to the records in this case, since the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for night structure intrusion larceny, etc. at the Incheon District Court on October 6, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 15, 2016, the crime of the judgment of the first instance court and the above crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive on December 15, 2016 are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act in relation to the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the punishment for the above crime shall be imposed by taking into consideration the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, since the judgment of the first instance court rendered a judgment with an excessive amount of judgment, the judgment of the first instance cannot be maintained in this respect.

B. According to the records of this case, “2017No. 2416” (the lower court’s judgment), the first final judgment becomes final and conclusive in the order of each final and conclusive judgment (hereinafter “final and conclusive judgment”) of the criminal records as indicated in the judgment of the lower court (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment”).