All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant X, with prison labor for one year and six months, and Defendant BE.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor (the part of the first instance judgment against Defendant B)’s sentence sentenced by the lower court against Defendant B (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendants’ sentences (Defendant B-1: Imprisonment for 10 months, 2 years of probation, probation, community service order 80 hours, 80 hours of community service order: Imprisonment for / Defendant X-2: imprisonment for a maximum of one year and six months, short of one year and six months, 1 year and 4 years: imprisonment for a short of one, 6 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation/Defendant BE- maximum of two years of imprisonment, and 1 year and six months of short of one) are too unreasonable.

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

A. The judgment of the court below in 1, 3 against Defendant B and X, and the judgment of the court below in 2, 4 against Defendant X, each of the above judgment of the court below, and Defendant B and X filed an appeal against each of the above judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of each of the above appeal cases. Since each of the crimes in 1, 3, and 2, and 4 of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B and the concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, one of the crimes in 1, 3, 4, and 2 of the judgment of the court below in 1, and the judgment of the court below in 2, the part against

B. Defendant BE was sentenced to an irregular term of punishment on the ground that Defendant BE was a DR student as provided by Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the second judgment, but it is apparent that Defendant BE was no longer a juvenile under the age of 19 and became a juvenile at the time of the trial. As such, the lower court’s judgment that sentenced Defendant BE to an irregular term of punishment became unable to maintain it as it is.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below on the ground of the above ex officio reversal is without examining the prosecutor's and the defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing.