The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (i) the lower court’s punishment (i) 2 years of the suspension of the execution of 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor, 160 hours of community service order, (ii) Defendant B is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination - Defendant A-ex officio spam, and the prosecutor filed an application for changes to the name of the crime against Defendant A in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapon, etc.) to “special intimidation”, and the applicable provisions of the Act to “Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act” in “Article 284 and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act,” and the judgment of the court against Defendant A cannot be maintained as it is, because this is changed by this court’s permission.

On the other hand, this part of the facts charged and the remaining facts charged that the court below found guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below against Defendant A cannot be maintained in its entirety.

3. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s judgment as to the grounds for appeal against Defendant B by the public prosecutor, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court’s judgment as to the grounds for appeal against Defendant B, and if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the view of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), the lower court would be disadvantageously unfavorable, on account of the fact that the nature of the instant crime and the circumstances of the instant crime are not somewhat weak, and there was a criminal conviction against Defendant B, but the criminal record of a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) around 20