All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and two months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

The main reasons for appeal (the first judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and imprisonment with prison labor for two months) of the court below is too unreasonable.

The judgment of the court below 1 and 2 sentenced the defendant to the judgment of the court below, and the defendant filed an appeal against the above two cases, and this court decided to hold a joint trial. Since each crime of the first and second judgment with the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, since the judgment of the court below 1 and 2 cannot be maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair assertion of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

【The grounds for the judgment in other words] The facts constituting the crime and the summary of the evidence acknowledged by the court in this case and the summary of the evidence are as follows: “N (N, 25 years old)” in the first 16th of the judgment among the “criminal facts” in the first 1st of the judgment (N, 24 years old); “1. Part of the Defendant’s legal statement” in the “main summary of the evidence” in the “1. Defendant’s own court statement” in the “criminal facts” in the second 2nd of the judgment among the “criminal facts” in the second 2nd of the judgment in the “2nd 2013.12,” and the Prosecutor’s embezzlement date in the “2nd 2014.1.12.” However, the judgment of the court below acknowledged the same as “N (N, 25 years old); however, according to the police record No. 2015 of the judgment below, the Defendant purchased the second 2013 computer products to a person who conducted interrogation.

The lower court stated “(34,35 pages)” and the second instance judgment also stated that “the reason for sentencing” was “the Defendant sold a computer on only one month after the lease,” and there is a concern that the identity of the facts charged may be recognized and that the Defendant’s exercise of his right to defense may substantially disadvantage.