Part 1 of the judgment is reversed.

A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two months for a crime set forth in judgment of the defendant.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment ex officio (as to the crime No. 1 of the judgment), prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant was sentenced on February 9, 2017 to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of aiding and abetting and abetting and abetting Violation of the Copyright Act in the Incheon District Court on February 1, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 9, 2017; and (b) on December 21, 2017, the Incheon District Court sentenced imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight million won for aiding and abetting Violation of the Copyright Act at the Incheon District Court on December 21, 2017, with the suspension of the execution of the above imprisonment with prison labor

Therefore, the above ① and ② the first offense of the judgment of the court below which had occurred prior to the day when the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, ② all the crimes of the previous offense are concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. ② The crimes of the previous offense are committed ① before the day when the final and conclusive judgment of the previous offense becomes final and conclusive, and ② the crimes of the previous offense are committed only when the judgment cannot be sentenced simultaneously with the crimes committed after the day when

The crime of Article 2 of the judgment of the court below is ① (i) from February 22, 2017 to March 14, 2017, which was after the day when the final judgment became final and conclusive, and (ii) from March 14, 2017, the crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act does not constitute the concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, inasmuch as the crime of

Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that punishment for the crime of this case shall be determined after considering equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and examining whether mitigation or exemption of punishment is granted (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008). In such a case, the lower court considered only the above (1) in applying the statutes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and did not consider the criminal offense (2). In so doing, the lower court rendered a final judgment under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and (1) concurrently with the crime of criminal offense.