All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing): The punishment (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for six months and the second instance court: the imprisonment with prison labor for four months) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

The judgment of the court below in the first and second instances against the defendant was rendered, and the defendant filed an appeal against it, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the two appeals cases.

Each crime of the first and second judgment against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the first and second judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. Thus, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes is against the defendant's recognition of the crime, and the victim of the crime of interference with business expressed his/her intention not to punish the defendant at the investigation stage, and the fact that the victim of the crime of interference with business expressed his/her intention not to punish the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes on July 19, 2016, which was sentenced to two years of suspended execution for six months of imprisonment due to interference with business affairs on July 19, 2016, during the suspended execution period after the above judgment became final and conclusive, and the Defendant was suspended execution period.