The remaining parts of the judgment of the court below excluding the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and the judgment of the court below 2 shall be reversed.

1. The court below's decision dismissing a public prosecution against each assault or intimidation among the facts charged in relation to the judgment of the court of first instance, and the judgment dismissing the public prosecution against the remaining facts charged, and the defendant appealed only for the guilty part, and the dismissal part against which the public prosecutor did not appeal for the reason that the sentencing was unfair, becomes separate by the lapse of the appeal period, and thus, the court of first instance shall decide only on the guilty part among the above judgment.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, fine for 600,000 won, and imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the defendant appealed against the judgment below, and this court decided to consolidate the above appeal case.

Each crime of the judgment below is in a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. However, as seen in paragraph (3) below, since the fine for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act among the judgment of the court of first instance is maintained as it is, this part of the judgment below is not reversed solely on the ground of consolidated trial. The remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the crime of violation of Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act must be sentenced to a single punishment in accordance with Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act. Thus, this part of the judgment below

4. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the illegal claim for the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act among the judgment of the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and the circumstances in which the Defendant asserted for an unfair reason for sentencing