All parts of the judgment of the court below against Defendant C and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. In 10 months of imprisonment, Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C and B’s sentence (Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for 5 months, Defendant B: imprisonment for 8 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s second sentence of the lower court (the Defendant C: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 240 hours of community service order, 10 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 240 hours of community service order, 1 year of probation, 3 years of probation, 240 hours of probation, 240 hours of probation, 3 years of probation, probation, and community service order) is deemed to be too una

2. Of the judgment below, the court of first instance and second instance ex officio determination on the part concerning Defendant C and B should concurrently examine the appeal cases of Defendant C and B. Each of the above Defendants’ first and second instance judgment is in a concurrent relationship with each other under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the term or amount of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In addition, according to the records, Defendant B, at the Suwon District Court on September 4, 2013, sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Military Service Act 8 months and 2 years of suspension of execution, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 5, 2013. Since each of the instant crimes committed by Defendant B and the crime committed by Defendant B, which became final and conclusive, are in concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment should be determined after considering equity and the case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and examining whether to reduce or exempt the sentence.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant C and B is no longer maintained in this respect.

3. Defendant A’s instant crime of this case regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant A is not only the attempted crime but also the two motor vehicles, when he intentionally caused an accident by driving a drinking-driving vehicle to use it as a motor vehicle, and then by threatening a drinking driver to make an agreement, etc., and the crime is very poor.