All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of imprisonment and imprisonment) of the lower court’s sentencing (6 months respectively) is too unreasonable.

2. The appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated by examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing (combined). Each of the offenses against the defendant in the judgment of the court below in relation to concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The judgment of the court below on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and the summary of the evidence admitted by this court and the summary of the evidence are as follows. Thus, except for correction or modification as follows, it is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Part 2 of the judgment of the court below in Paragraph 2, Paragraph 1, the "victim F" in Part 2, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 1, shall be corrected to "victim M," and according to each police statement about M and F, M, the actual operator of the restaurant, shall be corrected to the victim.

The first instance court’s decision that added “victims” to “10,00 won in total” in the second sentence of paragraph (2) 2 of the first instance court’s decision to “10,000 won” is corrected to “F,” and that the second sentence is corrected to “F,” and then “the victim,” in the second sentence of the first instance court’s decision, the second sentence is applied to “the police statement of F, M, and I,” and “the police statement of F, I,” in the second sentence of the evidence.

1. The judgment of the court below is based on Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the applicable Act, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act.