All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The decision of the court below (the first instance court: the imprisonment of eight months, and the second instance court: the imprisonment of five months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the first and second judgments were rendered to the Defendant, and the Defendant filed an appeal against them, respectively. This court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above two appeals cases. Each of the crimes of the first and second judgments against the Defendant in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, since it is a single sentence under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed in entirety, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of official duties) and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include the following: (a) the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes are led to confessions by and against the defendant; (b) the victims of interference with business do not want the punishment of the defendant; (c) the defendant is a disabled person of class 4 of the delay disorder; and (d) the degree of interference with the performance of official duties is not much serious.

On the other hand, the defendant had been sentenced to punishment for the same crime, and each of the crimes of this case was committed.