Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part on the defendant X and the guilty part on the defendant A and the judgment of the court below of second.

The first instance court dismissed the prosecution against Defendant A on the charge of violence among the facts charged against Defendant A, and sentenced Defendant A guilty on the remainder of the charges.

Accordingly, only Defendant A appealed against the guilty portion, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the dismissed portion of the above public prosecution.

Therefore, since the dismissal of the above indictment became final and conclusive separately as it is, the scope of the judgment of this court related to the first instance court against Defendant A is limited to the guilty part.

Defendant X misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal did not assault the victim AI.

The unfair sentencing of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

A The sentence of sentence by the court below (the court below's judgment of the first instance: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 3 years of probation, 80 hours of community service, 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant A filed an appeal against the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, and this court decided to consolidate the above appeal cases.

Defendant

Since Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a single punishment shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, since the first instance judgment against A is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained any more.

Defendant

The lower court determined that the Defendant committed an assault against the victim AI, such as the facts stated in the first instance judgment.

Specific reasons are as follows.

(1) After the occurrence of the instant crime, the victim left the police station with the defective defendant who reported the instant crime at the place of crime, and was engaged in the commission of the defendant thereafter.

AP was present at the investigative agency to assault a victim.

was stated.

(2) However, the victim shall proceed to the original trial by an investigative agency.