All part of the judgment of the first and second court and the judgment of the third court against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence (No. 1: imprisonment of 6 months, 2 months: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months: imprisonment of 1 year and 2 months: imprisonment of 2 months) sentenced by the court below against the defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. The first instance court’s sentence (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) imposed by the court below on Defendant B is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Consolidated Hearing- Defendant A filed an appeal against the above judgment of the court below and decided to jointly examine the above appeal cases. Each of the offenses of the court below Nos. 1, 2, and 3 is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a sentence should be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the first and third instances cannot be exempted from all reversals.

B. Concurrent crimes as provided in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act - Concurrent crimes as provided in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of appellate court after the pronouncement of the judgment of first instance, where a final and conclusive judgment rendered to sentence a punishment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act became final and conclusive, the appellate court shall reverse

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15253 Decided January 13, 2011, etc.). According to the records, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for two months at the Incheon District Court on February 11, 2015, and the part concerning Defendant B in the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on February 19, 2015, because both Defendant B and the prosecutor did not appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 3 lower judgment). Thus, the crime for which the said judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the sentence shall be determined in consideration of equity in the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act by reversal ex officio. In this regard, the part concerning Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance is maintained any more.