All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) each of the lower court’s sentences (six months each) is too unreasonable.

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

This Court reviewed the appeal cases against the judgment below together, and since each of the offenses of the judgment below is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The court below's conclusion 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 its entirety, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to property), Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of driving alcohol) of the Road Traffic Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to the aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes resulting from the most serious injury to punishment, but the lowest sentence shall be the same as the punishment determined for the crimes of violation of road traffic Act) of the aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of amount is that the defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, and that the said victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim of the injury and damage to property.

On the other hand, the defendant has been punished several times due to violent crimes and drinking driving, and the probation period due to violent crimes [the court on July 17, 2014] is suspended.