All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

The seized Suwon District Prosecutors' Office 2020 pressure.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Each sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 40 hours of probation, and pharmacologic, 20,000 won of collection, 1 year of imprisonment, 10,000 won of confiscation, and 100,000 won of collection) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below in the second instance), although the defendant could acknowledge the fact that he administered a phiphone as shown in this part of the facts charged, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, the judgment of the court below in the second instance is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts. 2) The sentence of the court below

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the defendant examined all of the judgment below, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below against the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court decided to concurrently examine the two appeals cases.

Since each of the judgment below's crimes is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant, around March 31, 2020, administered philophonephone d'O hotel P in Young-gu, Suwon-si around March 31, 2020.

B. Determination 1) The second instance court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, and its main purpose is as follows. In other words, Q and R’s statement (the Defendant showed the same form as the Defendant made a penphone, and recognized that Q had administered a cellphone on his own. However, the Defendant’s condition, which Q deemed, can be subjective, and the Defendant’s condition, which was