The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The lower court’s sentence (two years of the suspension of the execution of eight months of imprisonment, the observation of protection, and the community service order of 120 hours) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment.

The lower court found all of the charges of this case guilty of each injury and damage to property, which is the facts charged of this case, and there are several concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

The judgment of concurrent crimes at the same time requires aggravated punishment under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act; however, the court below set the applicable range of concurrent crimes without aggravated aggravated punishment (Supreme Court Decision 86Do617 Decided July 22, 1986). In addition, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by applying the law (Supreme Court Decision 86Do617 Decided July 22, 1986). In addition, on June 10, 2016, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years with prison labor for a period of suspension of ten months (the above court Decision 2016Da98) and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 18, 2016.

In regard to the crimes for which the above judgment has become final and conclusive and the crimes for which the judgment of the court below has become final and conclusive, the punishment for the crimes shall be sentenced to the judgment of the court below in consideration of the equity between the cases where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously in accordance with the first sentence of Article 39(1)

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained at any Mono.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's grounds for appeal on the grounds of appeal, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

【Re-written judgment] The criminal facts and summary of evidence presented by this court are the first head of the lower judgment’s criminal facts and the summary of the evidence. The Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for ten months on June 10, 2016 with prison labor for obstruction of the performance of fraudulent means’s official duties in the Cheongju District Court’s Assistance.