Of the crimes in Article 1 of the decision of the court below, the defendant is against the crime Nos. 1 through 4.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not borrow money No. 4 from the victim D, and only did not repay the money borrowed from the victim D, the Defendant did not borrow money with the intent to acquire the money by fraud.

(M) In addition, the court below's punishment against the defendant (the crime No. 1 to No. 4 of the judgment of the court below) (hereinafter referred to as "part of crime")

(1) 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor, 5, 6 crimes No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, 2 and 4 in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as 'the subordinate crime')

(2) The crime committed in the first instance court’s holding that the crime was committed in 8 months, No. 7, and No. 3, 5, and 6 (hereinafter “crimes due to the occurrence of the crime”).

(6)6 months of imprisonment with prison labor) too unreasonable;

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

Where multiple convictions against the accused have become final and conclusive, the sentence shall be imposed on the accused in violation of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act without examining the contents of the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008); and in light of the language and text and legislative intent of Articles 37 (1) and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, in cases where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it shall be interpreted that the sentence shall not be mitigated, or mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and the case for which judgment has already become final and conclusive pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295 Decided September 27, 2012, etc.). Meanwhile, the Defendant was sentenced to a final judgment of April 3, 2010 (hereinafter “previous judgment of April 3”) and a final judgment of October 14, 2010 (hereinafter “previous judgment of October 14”), as stated in the lower judgment, and the lower court committed a pro rata crime.

4.3.The crime of the previous conviction, and the (b) the (c) crime, are the previous conviction of October 14.