The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., indual) asserts that the Defendant is too uneasible to the punishment sentenced by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment), and that the prosecutor is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the defendant was in a trial and the victim did not have been punished against the defendant by agreement with the victim, and other reasons for sentencing as stated in the arguments and records of this case, such as the defendant's age, family relation, and environment, the sentence imposed by the court below appears to be unreasonable and unfair. Thus, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified and the prosecutor's assertion on

3. The judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.

(3) Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “In a case where an appeal by a defendant is accepted and the judgment of the court below is reversed, the prosecutor’s appeal shall not be dismissed separately from the disposition.”

Application of Statutes

1. Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 15981, Dec. 18, 2018); Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec.

1. From among concurrent crimes, Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of the crimes above two crimes)

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;