Defendant 2 was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of this case 801 high group of 2016 and the order of 2015 high group of 5713.

A. The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the case No. 2016 senior group 801 and 2015 senior group 5713 and 2 months of imprisonment for the case No. 6238 senior group 6238) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor prior to the determination of ex officio.

Where there are several crimes for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive, all of the crimes committed before such judgment becomes final and conclusive and crimes committed before such judgment are related to a group of concurrent crimes.

Therefore, in this case, a sentence shall be imposed at the same time on each crime for which judgment has not been rendered under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, taking into consideration equity and when a sentence is to be rendered (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008). In a case where a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered cannot be ruled concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final, concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and the punishment shall not be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity with the case where judgment is concurrently rendered under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the Defendant shall not be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 years, and the Defendant shall not be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 years, from 2013.