1. The part of the judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court below No. 2 shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

3...

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of Defendant 2’s decision on the original adjudication (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal doctrine (as to the acquitted portion of the judgment of the court below of first instance), in light of the location and size of the abortion on the vehicle owned by the victim, any person may recognize that the vehicle has fallen on the above vehicle. In the case of a vehicle with such an abortion, it is difficult to use it as a general means of movement, and the situation that the said abortion can be easily erased is merely a matter of reinstatement after the crime of property damage is established. Thus, the defendant's act of having fallen as stated in this part of the facts charged constitutes an act of impairing the utility of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2) The punishment of the original adjudication decision (4 million won in penalty) on the first instance of sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As the judgment of the court below in the first and second trials against the defendant in the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant in the judgment of the court of second instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings against the above two appeals cases. Among the judgment of the court of first and the judgment of the court of second trials, the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first and the judgment of the court of second instances are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first and the judgment

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles on the acquittal part of the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will

B. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court’s judgment as to the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles on the portion not guilty among the judgment of the court below of first instance in light of the records, the first instance court’s first instance judgment is a resolution of the first instance judgment.