Each part of the first and second original judgments shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

1. On the judgment of the second instance, the second instance court's judgment of the second instance dismissed prosecution as to the charge of assault against the defendant among the facts charged, and sentenced the defendant to six months of imprisonment with prison labor by recognizing guilty of the remaining bodily injury, and only the defendant appealed on the guilty part. Since the dismissal of the above public prosecution was not appealed in the judgment of the second instance, it becomes final and conclusive as it is, the appeal of the second instance judgment of the second instance is limited to the above guilty part

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 320 hours of community service, and 2 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, the prosecutor (the first instance judgment) erred by misapprehending the legal principles that sentenced a person disqualified from the suspension of execution to a person who is disqualified from the suspension of execution. 2) The sentence of the court of first instance of unfair sentencing is too

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

A. As to the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court of first instance decided to concurrently examine the above appeal cases. Each of the offenses against the defendant by the court of first instance constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment imposed on the defendant under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the conviction portion among the judgment of the court of first and

B. On May 1, 2019, the Defendant, both of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the crime of interference with business at the Seoul Southern District Court on the part of six months and became final and conclusive on May 15, 2019.

The crime of the first instance court's decision against the defendant and the crime of which judgment has become final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and is concurrently judged in accordance with Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act.