The judgment below

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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) Although the victim’s head bond was written at the time of the instant case, Defendant A did not look at the victim’s face, chest at the victim’s chest or her mother.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants (the same as above) is unfair because it is too unfasible.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case as to Defendant A’s ex officio decision on April 14, 2017, Defendant A was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury, obstruction of performance of official duties, and damage to property in this court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 23, 2017. Since the crime committed in the judgment of the court below is obviously a crime committed prior to the day when the above judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant A was sentenced to punishment on the crime committed in the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to a concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, taking into account the relationship between the crime and the above judgment of the court below, and the crime of injury, obstruction of performance of official duties, obstruction of execution of property, and damage to property. In this regard, the part on Defendant A among the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

B. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts: Provided, That despite the above ex officio reversal grounds, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

Defendant

A also argued to the same effect as the misunderstanding of facts in the above grounds for appeal.

As to this, the lower court shall comprehensively consider the circumstances in its judgment.