A. The Defendant asserts that Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act should be applied to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the instant crime committed before the judgment became final and conclusive, which became final and conclusive on June 11, 2009, constitutes concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37

B. One year of imprisonment imposed by the lower court on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below on the assertion of legal principles: (1) The defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment on November 29, 2004, one year of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, and the above judgment was finalized on December 7, 2004; (2) the defendant was sentenced to two years and six months of suspended execution, and four years of imprisonment on August 14, 2008 due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); and (3) the above judgment was finalized on June 11, 2009; and (4) the date and time of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) can be recognized as the fact on January 24, 2003, which was prior to the date

(2) However, the term “a crime for which a judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” constitutes concurrent crimes stipulated in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime among concurrent crimes has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and

In the instant case, each of the instant fraud crimes was committed on May 23, 2007 and August 20, 2007, prior to the date when the judgment with the previous department became final and conclusive, and thus, it is reasonable to view that each of the instant fraud crimes was capable of concurrently rendering judgment in criminal proceedings with the previous department.

(2) However, since the date and time of the crime with the preceding section is before the date of the final judgment, (2) the preceding section is concurrent crimes of the preceding and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and (2) the preceding section is Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.