Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for April, and No. 2: imprisonment for a year and six months, confiscation, and collection KRW 400,00) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant by the Prosecutor (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. As the judgment of the court below against the defendant in the first and second instances, the defendant was sentenced respectively, 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 court decided to concurrently examine each of the above appeals cases.

However, according to the records, the defendant was sentenced to two years and eight months of imprisonment for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Busan District Court on October 30, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 7, 2015. ② The crime of the judgment in the judgment in the judgment in the original judgment in the judgment in the first instance is the fact that the time of the crime was around June 10, 2014; ③ the judgment in the judgment in the judgment in the second instance on the judgment in the judgment in the second instance is recognized the fact that the time of the crime was around 2017 through 2018.

According to the above facts of recognition, the facts constituting the crime of the first instance judgment and the crime of the second instance judgment against the above defendant are severedd by the above final judgment and do not constitute a concurrent crime as referred to in the proviso of Article 37 of the Criminal Act before and after Article 37, so long as separate punishment should be sentenced, the consolidated trial was conducted.

Thus, the ground for ex officio reversal has occurred

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are still subject to the judgment by this court, and the following changes are examined.

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor

A. We examine the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion as to the judgment of the first instance court.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine.