All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the statements, etc. by the victim’s investigative agency against the first instance judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of not guilty of this part of the facts charged, on November 10, 2016, even though the Defendant could have found that he had extended to the victim E by extending to the hands on November 10, 2016.

(2) As to the judgment of the second instance, the sentence sentenced by the second instance court to the Defendant (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by Defendant 2 on the Defendant is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by Defendant 2 is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on each of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the first instance court rendered a judgment of innocence, and the second instance court rendered a judgment of acquittal, and the second instance court rendered a judgment of conviction, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the prosecutor and the Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance against the judgment of the court of second instance, the court rendered a decision to jointly examine the above appeal cases.

In addition, as examined below, the facts constituting the crime of the lower court No. 1 and 2 are found guilty, each of the crimes of the first and second judgment in the lower court is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one of the concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act should be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment for which the aggravated punishment

Therefore, the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 was no longer maintained in this respect.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, including the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s statement at the trial court, etc., the Defendant’s indecent act by reporting the victim E who was waiting for a taxi in front of the D convenience stores located in the Dong-gu, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si around November 10, 2016.