All judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed on the accused (one year and two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance court, two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance court, and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the third instance).

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

The judgment of the court below 1, 2, and 3 against the defendant was rendered separately, and all the defendants appealed, and the court decided to hold a joint hearing of all the above cases.

Each crime of the first, second, and third judgment is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below in the first, second, and third judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

In addition, at the trial of the court of the first instance, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content of the amendment as stated in the corresponding part of the crime history as stated in the judgment below related to the second instance judgment, and this court permitted it, and the subject of the judgment is changed. This part of the charges is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the remaining facts charged guilty by the second instance court, and thus, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the second judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below Nos. 1, 2, and 3 is reversed ex officio as seen earlier. Thus, without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, all of the judgment below and the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

[Grounds for a new judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are identical to the corresponding column of the original adjudication, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, among the judgment of the court below of the second instance, Article 3 of the Criminal facts in the judgment below is used as follows, and the summary of the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance is "[2016 Gohap 178]."