The part of the judgment of the court below regarding each of the crimes Nos. 1, 3, and 4 and the judgment of the court below No. 2 shall be reversed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (Article 1) is too unreasonable, taking into account the following: (a) the defendant committed a contingent crime under the detention of the defendant; (b) the defendant did not completely recover even though he made efforts to treat alcohol addiction; (c) the defendant did not completely recover from the victims; (d) the defendant agreed with some of the victims; (e) the types of the crimes in Articles 3 and 4 in the judgment; and (e) the types of the crimes in Articles 1 and 2 in the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of the second instance are relatively minor; (e) each appeal case against the judgment of the court of the court of the first instance are combined; and (e) the defendant reflects the nature of the defendant, the punishment imposed by the court of the court below (Article 1 shall be sentenced to imprisonment for one year; (e)

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the second instance against the defendant was rendered, and the defendant filed an appeal against them, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. The first instance court's judgment against the defendant and each of the offenses of the offenses of subparagraphs 1, 3, and 4 in the judgment of the first instance and Article 2 in the judgment of the second instance are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

B. Examining the judgment of the court below as to the part concerning the crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance by comparing all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, circumstances after the crime, and the reasons for sentencing in this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, it does not seem that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable even in view of the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victims of the crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance in the investigation, and other circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal.

3. The decision of the court below as to each of the crimes Nos. 1, 3, and 4 of the decision of the court below and the decision of the court below No. 2 of the court below as above.