Of the judgment of the first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance is 2017 Highest 2935, 2018 Highest 848, 2018 Highest 1122, and 2018 Highest 545.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

(F) The punishment of the lower court (in the first instance court: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of imprisonment, 2 months of imprisonment, 2 months of imprisonment, and 4: imprisonment with prison labor for the third instance: 2 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

It is unfair that the three-month imprisonment (two-month imprisonment) imposed by the court of the third instance is too unhued and unfair.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and the judgment of the court of first instance on the 2017 senior group 2935, 2018 senior group 848, 2018 senior group 1122, 2018 senior group 2018 senior group 545 attached Table 3, each of the crimes listed in attached Table 2018 senior group 3 through 6 in attached Table 2018 senior group 1069, 200 senior group 3 through 6, 3 or 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and decided to jointly examine the above appeal cases.

The judgment of the first instance court against the defendant is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence is to be imposed within the scope of punishment imposed under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, since the above part cannot be maintained as it is, since the crime is in the relation of concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing in comparison with the judgment of the court of first instance on each of the crimes listed in the 2017 Highest 2626, 2017 Highest 2740, 2017 Highest 2921, 2018 Highest 85, 2018 Highest 85, 113, 2018 Highest 256, 2018 Highest 337, 2018 Highest 722, 2018 Highest 205 Highest 545, 2018 Highest 545, 1, 2018 Highest 1, 1069 Attached Table of Crimes (6) and 2, and where the sentencing of the court of first instance does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court did not submit new sentencing data in the trial and the lower court’s decision on the grounds that new sentencing data was not submitted.