The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① There is no fact that the Defendant committed each crime of disturbing drinking alcohol and creating apprehensions as indicated in the judgment below.

② Since the lower court did not allow the Defendant to participate in the examination of witness G, H and I, the said witness’s statements are inadmissible.

③ Article 1 Subparag. 24 and 25 of the former Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11401, Mar. 21, 2012) (wholly amended by Act No. 11401, Mar. 21, 2012) which is the legal provision of the instant application, violates the principle of clarity in the Punishment of Punishment Act, since the phrase

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A. According to the facts of the crime indicated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of 11 months with prison labor, a fine of 4.5 million won on July 26, 2012 with prison labor on May 17, 2012, and confirmed on July 26, 2012 (hereinafter “the first and the first before before the court below”), and on April 30, 2013, after being sentenced to two years for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Crimes, etc.), and became final and conclusive on October 24, 2013 (hereinafter “the second before the court below”) upon being sentenced to two years for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.), and upon being sentenced to ten years for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.), the court below appears to have dealt with each of the criminal facts described in the judgment of the court below in light of the following facts.

However, according to the records, each of the crimes of this case was committed on August 23, 2010, which was before the first and the last day of the judgment of the court below, and on November 30, 2010, which was before the last day of the judgment of the court below, and was committed after the first and last day of the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, since the crimes of the two and three preceding crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below and each of the crimes of this case are not cases where they can be judged at the same time, the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code shall apply.