All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant I shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months.

1. The decision of the court below (the first instance court: the imprisonment of Defendant A, the second instance court: the imprisonment of Defendant A, the imprisonment of Defendant A for a year, the imprisonment of Defendant I for a year, and the collection of additional money for a year and June) on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the part on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A.

The appellate court held that each of the appeals cases against the judgment of the court below was consolidated and tried, and that each of the offenses against the defendant A is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one of the offenses against the defendant A should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against Defendant A was no longer maintained.

B. As to the judgment on the part of Defendant I, Defendant I had the record of violent crimes and the record of narcotics crimes, and the record of having been sentenced several times due to narcotics crimes is disadvantageous to Defendant I.

However, when Defendant I was in the past, he led to the confession and reflect of all the crimes including narcotics, etc., and the crime exposed to the harm and injury is a mere possession and smoking of marijuana that is relatively light compared to other narcotics crimes, and the statutory penalty is more serious than the crime related to Mesa amsa.

Considering that there was an agreement with the victims of damage to property and injury, and Defendant I’s “The reason for moving to Q main point is to restrain Defendant A’s disturbance,” the lower court’s punishment is somewhat unreasonable, taking into account the following factors: (a) Defendant I’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc.; and (c) Defendant I’s argument is reasonable.

3. Accordingly, the part of the judgment below against Defendant A is reversed ex officio as seen above, and the appeal against Defendant I’s second instance judgment is with merit.