The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.

The judgment below

Part of acquittal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part) of the facts charged in the instant case, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor reveals that the suspect in this part of the facts charged and the Defendant was the same person as the suspect in CCTV images. Therefore, the Defendant can be acknowledged as committing the same crime as indicated in this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed the crime described in this part of the facts charged, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, by taking account of the detailed circumstances as stated in its reasoning, regarding the prosecutor’s allegation of mistake and misapprehension of legal doctrine

The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it cannot be readily determined.

A thorough examination of the records showing that the court below did not submit any additional evidence in the court below's lawfully explained circumstances, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. Prior to determining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor’s ex officio as to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, according to each evidence recorded in the summary column of the following evidence, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for six months from the Cheongju District Court Jeju District Court for the crime of damaging property on March 2, 2017, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 10, 2017.

However, the crime of destruction of property and the crime of destruction of property (the crime of interference with the execution of official duties and the crime of destruction of property) against the defendant, which became final and conclusive, constitute concurrent crimes by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.