A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the punishment of concurrent crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though each of the crimes stated in the judgment below should be sentenced to one punishment on the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

The argument is asserted.

B. The criminal defendant asserts that the punishment sentenced by the lower court (the crime No. 2017 Highest 3971, supra: Imprisonment with prison labor for October, and the crime No. 2017 Highest 5149: Imprisonment with prison labor for two months and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act provides, “The crime for which a judgment to be sentenced to 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.” The first part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides, “When there is a crime which has not been adjudicated among concurrent crimes, a sentence shall be imposed in consideration of the case where the crime and the crime for which a judgment has become final and conclusive are concurrently adjudicated and equity.”

According to the records, the Defendant, in the Daegu District Court’s support on October 13, 2015, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act, and on December 10, 2015, the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 10, 2015. As such, the crime of the first half 5149 of the judgment of the lower court, which was committed prior to the final and conclusive judgment, is in the relation between the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. and the second half 2017 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the crime of the 2017 Highest 5149 and the 2017 Highest 3971 Highest 2017 Highest 397 is not a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and cannot be sentenced to a single punishment. Therefore, the lower court’s punishment for two crimes is justifiable.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of law.

3. The Defendant’s erroneous recognition of and reflects on his/her wrong determination of sentencing, and the offense of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fences) as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, which became final and conclusive on December 10, 2015, and the offense of 5149 higher order 2017.