The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant.

(b) the defendant;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence (No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) In full view of the evidence duly submitted by the prosecutor concerning the part of acquittal in the judgment of the first instance on erroneous determination of facts, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on this part of the facts charged, even though it could be sufficiently admitted. 2) The above sentence imposed by the first instance court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the first court rendered a judgment against the defendant as the Incheon District Court 2012Da3579, the second court rendered a judgment against the defendant as the Incheon District Court 2012 Godan986, and the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgment below, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the first court below, and the second court rendered a decision to jointly examine the above two appeals cases. Each of the first and second court's conviction against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single punishment shall be imposed within the scope of punishment aggravated under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the first and second court's conviction and the second court's judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the existence of the above reasons for ex officio destruction.

B. On July 201, 201, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged against the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, including two to three persons who are unable to know the name of the victim AA in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and two to three persons, and two hundred thousand won of service fees for entertainment entertainment service, which are managed by the victim AA in the Nam-gu, Incheon.