A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

The second judgment of the court below.

misunderstanding of facts (the first judgment) The defendant introduced the victim to A as a subcontractor without knowing that the contract document brought by Co-Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as "the contract document of this case") was false, and there is no conspiracy between A and the criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (the second judgment of the court below) by the court below is too unreasonable.

If several crimes have not yet been adjudicated due to the consolidation of an appellate court's judgment on the ex officio reversal of judgment, are committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment, it is said that the crimes committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, and as such there is no final and conclusive judgment, Article 38 of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to apply to several crimes as concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are deemed to exist. Therefore, a separate sentence shall be

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the records of this case, the Defendant, at the Seoul Northern District Court on January 14, 2014, was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud and two years of suspended execution and was sentenced to two years of suspended execution on May 31, 2014, and such judgment became final and conclusive (B).

Although the crime in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant is committed before the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for fraud in the Daejeon District Court for eight months, separate from the above previous conviction, and the crime in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant was committed before the judgment becomes final and conclusive on February 11, 2010, and the crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive on May 31, 2014 was committed before the above judgment became final and conclusive on February 11, 2014, and thus, the crime in the judgment of the first instance court and the crime in the judgment of the first instance cannot be judged at the same time at the same time.

Therefore, between the crime of which judgment was rendered on May 31, 2014 and the crime of which judgment was rendered in the first instance court against the defendant, the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code is established.