1. Of the judgment of the second instance, the part concerning the third offense of "2014 high-ranking 39" as stated in the judgment of the lower court shall be reversed.

2. The court below held the defendant.

1. In light of the following: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal: (b) there is no way for the Defendant to resolve his/her debt increased due to his/her children’s study expenses and living expenses; (c) the Defendant’s family is faced with difficulties in living due to the detention of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant is divided into and reflects his/her wrongs; (b) each sentence (the first instance court: the fine of KRW 5 million; and (c) the second instance court; (d) the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of KRW 1 and 2 of the 2014 High Class 39: (d) the judgment of the lower court; and (e) three months for the crimes of KRW 2014 High Class 5128; and (e) the sentence of the 2014 High Class 4037; and (e) the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the third offense of the 2014 High Class 3949.

2. Determination

A. Two original judgments were consolidated in the first instance court, but the first instance court’s punishment was sentenced to a fine, and the second instance court’s punishment is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, which is different from each other, and the second instance court’s punishment is not subject to punishment as a single sentence by maintaining the sentence of the first and the second instance court’s judgment as it is in the choice of punishment, and thus, it does not ex officio destroy it on the ground

Therefore, the grounds for appeal against each judgment are divided.

B. On the judgment of the first instance court, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the amount of damage and whether the Defendant has repaid damage, the method and means of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the records of the Defendant’s punishment in the past, and other circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, it is not deemed unfair that the first instance court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

C. (1) The part concerning the Defendant’s ground for appeal in the part concerning Article 3 of 2014Dadan3949 of the judgment of the court below as stated in the judgment of the court below is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s ground for appeal; and the prosecutor’s first instance trial against the Defendant at the trial of the court below on July 2014 of the judgment of the court below, which stated in the judgment of the court below as “the first police officer of July 5, 2014” as “the first police officer of July 2014.”