The defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two months and by the decision of the court below for the first crime [2012 Go-dan516] of the judgment of the court below.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

A. In light of the language, legislative purport, etc. of the original judgment [2012 Go-so516] 1, [2013 Go-so-so-called 671] 1 through 4, 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 cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the crime cannot be established concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, and that the sentence may not be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and the case for which judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012; 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014).

3) The crime of paragraphs 1 through 4 of the judgment of the court below [2013Kadan671] is a crime committed before the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive. However, since the preceding and the crime were committed before the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established in accordance with the above legal principles as long as the preceding and the crime were committed before the judgment of the court below, and since the former and the crime cannot be judged at the same time, the latter part of the same Article of the Criminal Act cannot be established. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which sentenced punishment in consideration of both the above crime and the crime at the same time and equity cannot be maintained (the above crime is