The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s improper sentencing (as to the judgment of the court below)

B. The prosecutor’s improper sentencing (as to Defendant C of the first and second judgment)

2. Determination

A. Of the judgment of the court below, Defendant A made an appeal against the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant A and C, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant A and the part concerning Defendant C among the judgment of the court below, and this court made a decision to jointly examine the above two appeals cases.

Defendant

Each of the judgment below against A and C is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, among the judgment below, each of the judgment against Defendant A and C cannot be maintained as it is.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the prosecutor's improper argument about the sentencing of the defendant B of the first original judgment is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. As to the prosecutor’s unjust assertion of sentencing (the first instance judgment) with respect to the prosecutor’s allegation of sentencing against Defendant B, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and there is a unique area for the first instance judgment in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, the first instance judgment is reversed solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and the first instance judgment is to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment.