In light of the language and legislative intent of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, in cases where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be ruled concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence may not be imposed, or a sentence may not be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948, Oct. 27, 201). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts may be revealed.

On June 27, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Promotion of Recycling of Construction Wastes, and on July 5, 2017, which was sentenced to two years of suspended execution (hereinafter “the first criminal conviction”). On October 24, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with labor for an injury and one year of suspended execution on November 1, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 1, 2017 upon being sentenced to one year of suspended execution (hereinafter “second criminal conviction”). The second criminal offense was committed for the second criminal offense before the first criminal conviction becomes final and conclusive, on the ground that Article 37 of the Criminal Act is to be imposed concurrently with the crime of the first criminal conviction and equity, and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is to be applied.

According to the records, the crime of this case, which the court below found guilty, was committed after the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive, and the crime of the second criminal offense committed before the judgment of the court of first instance was committed at the same time before the judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the crime of the second criminal offense, which was committed before the judgment of the court of first instance, cannot be judged at the same time at the same time, and thus, the punishment shall not be sentenced or mitigated in consideration of equity between the crime of the second criminal offense and the crime of the former

Therefore, the court below is justified in determining the punishment of the defendant without considering the second criminal offense in relation to the instant crime.

This measure is the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, but it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the application of Article 39(1).