Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. Before ex officio determination of the grounds for appeal, the term “a crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive” constitutes concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive shall be sentenced in consideration of equity and where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, a sentence shall not be imposed or mitigated in consideration of equity and the case for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 years and the final and conclusive judgment for not more than 16 months has become final and conclusive by the final and conclusive judgment by the Seoul District Court.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act that sentenced punishment in consideration of the crime of this case committed after the first final judgment became final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and equity, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is ex officio as to the above facts.