All of the convictions in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (the judgment of the court below No. 1) is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle that the defendant committed the crime of the first instance judgment during the repeated crime period, and thus, the defendant cannot be sentenced to a suspended sentence. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to repeated crime, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a suspended sentence to the defendant.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in the month of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended sentence, and 120 hours of community service order) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The punishment (six months of imprisonment) imposed on the Defendant by the second instance judgment (the second instance judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Upon ex officio determination, the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below and decided to concurrently examine the above appeal cases. The first instance court's decision against the defendant and the second instance judgment's judgment with respect to concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment imposed for concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the first instance judgment against the defendant and the second instance judgment's conviction cannot be maintained any more.

However, the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

B. According to the record on the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment on July 19, 2012 with labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving), etc. at the Busan District Court’s Branch Branch, and completed the enforcement on January 14, 2013. The crime obstructing the performance of official duties in the judgment of the first instance court can be acknowledged as being committed on February 2, 2015, which is the repeated offense period.

However, the court of first instance selected imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties. In such a case, the court of first instance aggravated repeated crimes in accordance with Article 35 of the Criminal Act.