1. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which no judgment has yet been rendered cannot be ruled concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, a sentence shall be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity and equity, or a sentence shall not be mitigated or remitted.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948, Oct. 27, 2011). 2. The following facts are known by records or are significant in this court.

On April 6, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for the crime of causing property damage in Busan District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 15, 2018.

(hereinafter “First Instance”) The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. due to Metept Ampins, Etc. at the Busan District Court on November 27, 2018, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 17, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as “second offense”). The crime of the second offense was committed by applying the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act on the ground that it is committed by a person who was committed before the judgment of the first offense becomes final and conclusive, and was sentenced to punishment by applying the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1).

3. However, according to the records, the crime of this case, which the court below found guilty, was committed after the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive, and since the crime of the second criminal offense committed before the judgment of the court of first instance was committed at the same time before the judgment became final and conclusive, it is deemed that the sentence cannot be imposed or the sentence cannot be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity with the crime of the second criminal offense, pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the application of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, without considering the second criminal record as to the instant crime.