All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Pinyl chloride devinyl chloride which has been seized.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor’s sentence (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year; two years of suspended execution; eight months of imprisonment with prison labor; confiscation) sentenced to the first and second instance judgment (the first instance judgment; the second instance judgment; the second instance judgment) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

B. The sentence sentenced to the second instance judgment (unfair sentencing against the second instance judgment) is too unreasonable.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance were rendered against the defendant, and the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance, and this court decided to hold the above two appeals together.

However, since each crime of the first and second judgment in the judgment of the court below is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below in the first and second judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 is reversed in entirety, and the judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is again decided after pleading, on the ground that there is a ground for reversal by authority as above.

【Grounds for the judgment to be used again] The facts constituting a crime and the summary of the evidence acknowledged by the court of this court and the summary of the evidence related thereto are indicated in the indictment to be changed to “ March 26, 2018” as “ March 26, 2018.” However, according to the AL’s statement, materials to be submitted by the victim, and the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, etc., it cannot be seen that “ March 26, 2018.” Even if so, there is no substantial disadvantage in the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense.

Except for all, it is identical to each corresponding column of the first and second judgment resolution, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1..