A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months at the Gwangju District Court on December 9, 201, and the above judgment was finalized on December 17, 2011. The Defendant committed the instant crime from August 2009 to June 15, 2010 in the relationship between the crime for which judgment became final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act were concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and the sentence should be imposed in consideration of equity and the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. However, the lower court, which did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor at the Gwangju District Court on September 21, 2007, and the said judgment was finalized on September 29, 2007, and was sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Gwangju District Court on May 1, 2008, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 28, 2008, and (2) the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Gwangju District Court on December 9, 201, and on December 17, 2011, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 17, 201, and (3) the date and time of the instant crime from around August 10, 209 to around August 15, 209.

However, the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act provides that "a crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall be deemed concurrent crimes. Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that if there is a crime for which judgment among concurrent crimes has not been rendered, punishment for such crime may be mitigated or remitted in such a case, taking into account equity between the crime and the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive at the same time.