In the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the term “a crime for which judgment to face imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” is defined as concurrent crimes. Therefore, the offense for which judgment to impose a fine or a summary order has become final and conclusive cannot be the concurrent crimes of the latter part after

According to the records, the court below held that each of the crimes committed prior to the final date of larceny for which each of the summary orders in the judgment against the defendant has become final and conclusive, and the crime committed prior to the final date of each of the above summary orders is in the relation of concurrent crimes

Recognizing that each of the above crimes committed prior to the final date of each of the above summary orders and each of the above crimes committed after the final date of each of the above summary orders shall be determined separately for each of the crimes, and the defendant shall be sentenced to three of the crimes.

In light of the above legal principles, each crime committed by the Defendant before and after the conclusion of each of the above summary orders cannot be a concurrent crime by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, and all of them are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, so a single sentence should be imposed.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of single concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.