The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The prosecutor of the grounds for appeal asserts that the punishment imposed by the court below (ten months of imprisonment) is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. In the case of this case, the Prosecutor filed an application for amendment to a bill of indictment with the effect that “the Defendant was sentenced to five months imprisonment with labor for the crime of interference with business, etc. at the Changwon District Court on February 12, 2015 and is still pending in the trial of the final appeal,” among the facts charged in the instant case, “the Defendant was sentenced to five months imprisonment with labor for the crime of interference with business, etc. at the Changwon District Court on February 12, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 14, 2015,” and the judgment of the lower court was modified by permitting this to be tried, and thus, the lower

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and the following is again decided as the grounds for ex officio reversal.

[Discied Judgment] Facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence recognized by the court, and summary of evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below.

(Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Application of law

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

2. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes;

3. The latter part of Article 39 (1) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (the principle of equity in cases where a judgment is rendered simultaneously with the obstruction of business, etc., the judgment of which becomes final and conclusive) following the treatment of concurrent crimes

4. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation has a record of having been punished several times for the same crime, and the victim committed the instant crime even though he/she was under suspended sentence after having been sentenced to suspended sentence due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a deadly Weapons, etc.) and a crime of bodily injury.