Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part concerning the crime of 2015 Ma3753 and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court [the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for each crime other than the part concerning the crime set forth in the first instance judgment (excluding the part concerning the crime set forth in the second instance judgment 3753 of the judgment below] and the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for each crime set forth in the second instance judgment [the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and 8 months for the crime set forth in the second instance judgment set forth in the judgment below] are too unreasonable.

(b) The form of the first original ruling of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

This Court held that each appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated and tried, and each offense in the judgment of the court of first instance against the crime of 2015 senior 3753 senior decision of the judgment of the court of second instance and the crime of 2nd decision of the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the crime of 2015 senior group 3753 and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained any more.

3. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the following facts are favorable: (a) the Defendant’s erroneous determination of the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion on each of the remaining crimes except for the part concerning the crime in subparagraph 3753 of the order of 2015, as indicated in the judgment below; (b) the amount of damage is not so significant; and (c) the victim G of the case in the 2015 order of 2015 order of 1704 order and the J.

On the other hand, even if the defendant had been punished for the same crime, and the investigation and trial on the crime of embezzlement of the criminal records in the judgment were conducted, the crime of each of the crimes of this case was committed, and the victim is multiple and did not agree with the other victims until the trial is held.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., as well as the various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, and the facts that the said crime is concurrent crimes of the first instance judgment and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or more.