The judgment below

All parts of the defendant B, C, and E shall be reversed.

Defendant

B and E shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, and the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (i) The sentence of the court below (ii) is too unreasonable that the sentence of imprisonment for one year, three years of probation, observation of protection, community service, 120 hours of probation, three years of probation, observation of protection, community service, 200 hours of probation, three years of probation, three years of probation, one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of probation, one year and six months of probation, three years of probation, two years of probation, one year and six months of community service, and two years of probation in one year and six months of imprisonment).

2. Before determining the Defendants’ grounds for appeal ex officio with respect to Defendant B and E, the lower judgment ex officio was unable to be maintained due to the following reasons for reversal ex officio.

A. According to the records, Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year on September 10, 2015 by obstructing business operations by the Gwangju District Court, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2016.

Therefore, since each of the crimes of this case is in a concurrent relationship between the above crimes for which judgment has become final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment of this case shall be determined by taking into account the equity between the cases to be judged at the same time under Article 39(1

B. For the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to the part of the facts charged against Defendant E as “special injury” from “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)”, and the applicable legal provision “Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” in “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” and the amendment of the indictment with respect to which “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act was modified by the court.”

3. Determination as to Defendant A and C’s assertion

A. The decision of the court below is that the defendant A's mistake is recognized and reflected, that there are all agreements with the victims, that there are circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and that the degree of damage caused by the defendant's obstruction of business is not significant.