The judgment below

The part concerning each crime of No. 1 of the judgment shall be reversed.

As to each crime of No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (each of the crimes of No. 1 in the judgment of the court below: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, fines of 200,00 won, and each crime of No. 2 in the judgment of the court below: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before making a judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the court should determine the period of detention in the event of failure to pay a fine (Article 70(1) of the Criminal Act) and simultaneously determine the period of detention in the event of failure to pay a fine (Article 70(1) of the Criminal Act). The court below found the Defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act against the Defendant and sentenced a fine of KRW 200,000,000 to the Defendant. Thus, the court omitted the sentence of detention in the

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act in the judgment below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the detention in the workhouse, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The crime of this part and the crime of paragraph (a) of Article 1 of the judgment of the court below in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, is a single sentence under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and therefore, the part

B. The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and is in profoundly against the depth thereof, and the victim came to reach an agreement with the victim for the damage of property and the obstruction of business affairs, which led to the smooth agreement between the victim and the victim.

In addition, in the case of each of the crimes of Article 2 of the decision of the court below, as stated in all the facts constituting the crime in the decision of the court below, the balance between the crime of violation of road traffic law (driving) for which judgment has become final and the crime of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Code should be considered

However, on May 10, 2016, the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment several times due to the crime of destroying property, and is sentenced to suspended execution due to the violation of road traffic law (drinking) as stated in all criminal facts in the judgment of the court below.