Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part concerning each of the crimes in 2019 Highest 2603 and 2019 Highest 294 and the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. The punishment of each of the lower judgment against the Defendant in summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance judgment: the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and six months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for two months and two months) is too unreasonable for each of the crimes in the second instance judgment against the Defendant.

2. The first court rendered ex officio judgment: (a) the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months or more; and (b) a punishment of six months or more for the crime of a second instance or a second instance or a second instance or a second instance; and (c) the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months or more for each crime of a second instance or a second instance.

The second court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two months after completing the examination separately from the first court.

The Defendant appealed against each judgment of the lower court, and this Court decided to hold a joint hearing of the appealed cases.

However, since Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a single punishment shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) for the crimes of Articles 2019, 2603 and 2019, 294 and each of the crimes of Articles 2019, 29, 299 and 2994 as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the part concerning each of the crimes of Articles 2019, 2603 among the judgment of the court of first instance

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court as to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing (as to the crime of the 2020 Highest 392 case among the judgment of the first instance), and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). We examine the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.

Since the defendant was indicted for each of the crimes in the 2019 Highest 2603 and 2019 Highest 2994 and was tried to commit this part of the crime, it is highly likely to be subject to criticism in that he/she went to commit this part of the crime, and there was no recovery from damage up to the trial, so the necessity of strict punishment against the defendant is significant.

(2).