All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below 1) Although there was a misunderstanding of the facts or a misunderstanding of the legal principles by the police, the police did not refuse to comply with the application for witness.

Victim K and Victim L does not want to be punished by a defendant

The lower court did not properly consider the testimony.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower judgment of the second instance (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the judgment of the court below was separately sentenced to the defendant, and the defendant appealed each other, and the court decided to hold concurrent hearings.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the defendant should be sentenced to a single punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to each of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

The judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained due to such ex officio reversal, but the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court

3. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit, on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove that the police investigation on the crime subject to the judgment of the court of first instance, based on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, was conducted in a biased manner, or that the Defendant intended to apply for a witness as a police officer, or that

The judgment of the court of first instance takes into account the victim K's expression of non-exclusive punishment in favor of the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the victim L did not express his non-exclusive punishment (the victim L does not want to punish the defendant in the examination of the first instance court in question).

“The fact stated” shall be.