The part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance concerning the defendant's case shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of one year and eight months.

The second instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the Defendant’s case and the part on which the request for attachment order was filed, and only the Defendant appealed therefrom, so there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part on which the request for attachment order was filed.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment of the court of second instance regarding the application for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court of this court. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(F) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (Article 1: 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance court, and the second instance court: 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance court, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

A. As to the consolidated defendant, the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance were rendered, the defendant filed an appeal against the part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance regarding the defendant's case, and the court of second appeal decided to jointly

However, each crime of the first and second judgments of the court below against the defendant should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the case of the first and second judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court for the crime of interference with business on December 5, 2018 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 13, 2018.

However, each of the crimes in the first and second judgments of the court below is in the relation of the crime of interference with business for which judgment became final and conclusive and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.