A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

A. The “written cash custody certificate” stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below is forged B.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the conviction of all the charges of this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act for ex officio determination, in cases where a crime for which no judgment has yet to be rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence shall not be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity and equity, or that the sentence shall not

(2) According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of execution on August 11, 2017 by the Seoul Southern District Court on the grounds of special injury on August 11, 2017 (hereinafter “final judgment”), and the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 19, 2017 (hereinafter “final judgment”); ② (a) on September 20, 2019, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced him/her to the suspension of execution on April for the offering of bribe at the Seoul Central District Court on the ground of the offering of bribe on December 12, 2019 (hereinafter “second final judgment”); and (c) on December 12, 2019, the final judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “final final judgment”); and (c) since the crime of final judgment second is recognized as low-quality crimes prior to the date on which the final judgment became final and conclusive, each of the instant crimes committed after the date on which the final judgment became final and conclusive and each of the instant final judgments became final and conclusive, the judgment could not be simultaneously sentenced to the final judgment.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act that sentenced punishment in consideration of the crime of final judgment No. 2 and equality in each of the crimes of this case pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below was no longer able to maintain any further.

However, as above.