The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of Defendant 1 and the second instance court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The first instance court’s sentence of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the first and second court was rendered on the defendant for ex officio judgment, and the defendant filed each appeal against the first and second court judgment, and the prosecutor decided to consolidate the above two cases.

Since the first and second court's crimes against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, the first and second court's judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

3. If so, the judgment of the court of final appeal Nos. 1 and 2 is based on the above ex officio reversal, and thus, the judgment of the court of final appeal is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without further proceeding to decide on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing and on the prosecutor's first judgment of final appeal

【The grounds for the judgment of the court in Dao-written] The facts constituting the crime and the summary of the evidence acknowledged by this court and the summary of the evidence thereof shall be conducted by means of reproducing and reproducing the evidence examination on the video media stored in the computer disc, etc. (Article 292-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 134-8(3) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure). Although it is unclear whether “CCTV video CD (Article 134-8(3) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure 27 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure)” as admitted by the court below was examined by the above methods, the court below did not reverse the judgment of the court below on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the remainder of the facts charged in this case other than the above CD was sufficiently proven as evidence even if some of the methods of investigation of evidence were illegal, it is difficult to view that such error affected the judgment.