Since the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016No. 2694, 5243 (Joint) sentenced to two years imprisonment with prison labor, etc. was finalized on March 30, 2017, which was the date the judgment of the lower court was rendered, and the crime of this case and the crime stated in the above judgment are in a concurrent crime relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it is a circumstance favorable to the defendant that the court should determine punishment in consideration of equity with the case where the above case was adjudicated simultaneously.

However, the court below seems to have taken into account the above circumstances since the defendant had already been sentenced to two years of imprisonment in the above appellate court and was under confinement in the Seoul detention center. The crime of this case was committed by the defendant with false testimony in order to obtain a favorable judgment while being tried, and thus, the nature of the crime is very poor, and all the circumstances in the reasons for sentencing (in the case of ex post concurrent crimes, the sentencing criteria are not applied, and this part is excluded) and all the conditions in the records of sentencing as stated in the court below. Thus, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is deemed to be appropriate, and it cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too too unreasonable.

The Defendant’s assertion is without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. However, considering that the above circumstances appear to have already been reflected in the judgment of the lower court, the lower court did not reverse the judgment, and all of the facts constituting the crime of the lower court’s judgment, “The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years at the Seoul Central District Court for crimes, such as violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence), etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 30, 2017.

Before the last sentence of the evidence, “1. Before the judgment: the Defendant’s oral statement at the trial, each written judgment,” and “1. Concurrent treatment: After Article 37 of the Criminal Code, the first sentence of Article 39(1) is applicable.”