Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B, for two years.

A. In a case where Defendant D obtained a loan with Defendant A and then purchased the said vehicle, and there was no conspiracy to raise money by disposing of the said vehicle on an exclusive road as stated in the judgment of the court below, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant D did not have made a false accusation.

(B) On November 2, 2016, the summary of the oral argument submitted by the defense counsel of the above defendant after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal (to the extent of supplement in the event of supplement in the grounds for appeal).

The sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, Defendant B, and Defendant D: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

(2) On November 23, 2016, the grounds for appeal filed by a defense counsel of the defendant A after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal are examined to the extent that the grounds for appeal of this part of the grounds for appeal are supplemented).

A. We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A prior to the judgment on the ex officio decision on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A.

The term "a crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall be deemed concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes and a crime for which judgment has not been made final and conclusive under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced at the same time in consideration of equity and where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be ruled simultaneously with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it shall be interpreted that a sentence shall not be imposed or mitigated

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do12003, May 16, 2014; 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, Defendant A was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for embezzlement at the Seoul Central District Court on May 24, 2013, and said judgment was rendered on July 15, 2013.