B. Defendant B is a crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below.

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts) does not mean that the Defendant did not have either executed construction works or provided services to the victim without the intent or ability to pay the cost.

2. Ex officio determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant B.

B. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship between concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and the sentence cannot be imposed or mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and equity pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do948, Oct. 27, 2011; 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). Since several crimes for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive are less than one crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive before and after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, it cannot be deemed that the former part of Article 301 of the Criminal Act has no choice but to be separately determined and applied between two crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20101)., Article 361 of the Criminal Act.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the record, the crime of fraud of paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below is committed before the judgment of Defendant B, who was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on July 12, 2014, for the same crime in the High Court Yangyang Branch of the Government District Court, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for the same crime in Seoul Western District Court, separately from the above criminal offense, and the judgment of December 20, 2013 became final and conclusive.