In the case of each crime of No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, the defendant is sentenced to six months of imprisonment, and No. 2 of the judgment.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In light of the language, legislative purport, etc. of the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the crime of destruction of property (the crime of destruction of property and damage to public property) of Article 1-2 of the Criminal Act after Article 37 and Article 39-1 of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment was not yet rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment became final, concurrent crimes cannot be established after Article 37 of the Criminal Act may not be established. In light of cases where judgment is concurrently rendered under Article 39-1 of the Criminal Act and equality, a sentence shall not be mitigated or mitigated (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for six months with prison labor for larceny at the Daejeon District Court on June 10, 2015 (the crime of destruction of property and damage to public property) and the crime of destruction of property, which became final and conclusive by the defendant on June 18, 2015.

Article 37 of the Criminal Act is established between the two preceding crimes and the crime of destroying property and the crime of damaging public goods. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(b).