All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (Article 1: 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor and one year of suspended execution, and the second judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for 5 months and 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (with regard to the judgment of the court of first instance)’s sentence that the court below rendered is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, the defendant filed an appeal against each judgment of the court below, and this court decided to consolidate each appeal case against each of the judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses against the defendant in the judgment of the court below is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and must be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of a limited term of punishment under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the above judgment of the court below cannot escape from all of its reversal.

B. In addition, the first and third lower judgment determined a punishment for concurrent crimes by applying the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act on the ground that the first and third lower judgment’s punishment against the Defendant became final and conclusive. However, the lower judgment was rendered on July 25, 2014 and its judgment became final and conclusive on August 2, 2014, and the Defendant’s claim for recovery of his/her right of appeal became final and conclusive on October 14, 2014, and thus, the final and conclusive judgment became void.

Therefore, the first and third judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect.

C. Furthermore, according to the health records and records of the second instance judgment, the lower court confirmed on November 7, 2013 that the Defendant’s address via direct conversations with the Defendant and the Defendant’s address is “Ulsan-gu AC, Ulsan-gu,” and that the Defendant’s written indictment, etc. against the Defendant on November 11, 2013, is “Ulsan-gu AC, Ulsan-gu,” which is the Defendant’s address as stated in the indictment, and the lower court served the Defendant as “Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.”