The part concerning Defendant A and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

A A Attached List of Offenses

1. The number 1 and 1.

A. The sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant A and D (the defendant A: imprisonment of 8 months and imprisonment of 2 months and imprisonment of 1 year) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) sentenced by the court below to Defendant C (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service work of two hundred hours) is too uneased and unfair.

2. We examine the judgment ex officio on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A.

On June 12, 2013, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Suwon District Court, which became final and conclusive on November 28, 2013, and deemed that the crime of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the crime could have been adjudicated simultaneously with the crime for which the said judgment became final and conclusive, and applied the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, in light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established and that the sentence cannot be imposed or mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity with the case of concurrent judgment

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for four months at the Suwon District Court on June 29, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 1, 2013. The crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive on November 28, 2013, supra, is deemed to have been committed from August 12, 2012 to December 12, 2012, which was before the judgment became final and conclusive until December 2012, 2012. Accordingly, the Defendant could not be deemed to have been simultaneously sentenced to the crime under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive on November 28, 2013 and the crime under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the criminal facts, which became final and conclusive on November 28, 2013.

Therefore, the crime of paragraphs (1) and (2) and the crime of paragraphs (1) and (2) are judged on November 28, 2013.