All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

excessive seizure.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair form of punishment) of each of the original judgments (one year and two months of imprisonment, and eight months of imprisonment), is too unreasonable.

The court of the judgment of the court below ex officio decided to consolidate each appeal case of the court below against the defendant, and each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is again decided as follows through pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts constituting a crime and evidence recognized by this court shall be as shown in the respective columns of the judgment below.

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is quoted as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Specific Acts concerning Criminal Facts, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 78(1) and 49(2) of the Railroad Safety Act (a) of the same Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment with prison labor (with prison labor for larceny, damage to property, and crime of interference with business);

1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act is committed by the Defendant, while the Defendant is in excess of the crew who demanded the check inside the KTX (KTX), assaults the crew requesting the check on one occasion, and interferes with legitimate execution of duties at the hospital office.