The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's crimes not included in the facts charged of this case as if they were proved to be true, and thereby reflected this in the determination of the punishment. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-prosecution of the facts in violation of the principle of influ

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. In light of the discretionary discretion on the sentencing of the fact-finding court, the principle of balance of punishment and the principle of accountability that a reasonable balance between the crime and the punishment should be achieved, or the principle of accountability that the responsibility should be based on and proportional to the crime committed by the relevant accused, the inherent limitations are limited within the scope of sentencing determination as indicated in the facts charged by the relevant accused. As such, based on the crime prosecuted against the accused, the fact-finding court did not prove the circumstances constituting a separate crime that is not included in the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances after the crime, based on the motive or result of the crime prosecuted against the accused, but did not prove the facts constituting a separate crime that is not included in the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances after the crime, based on the evidence that has probative value excluding a reasonable doubt, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case including the head of the Tong, thereby infringing on the essential contents of the above balance of punishment and the principle of responsibility (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1816, May 29, 29, 4).