1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, we affirm the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant fraud on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Furthermore, we examine ex officio.

(a) "A crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall constitute concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in such cases, with respect to a crime which has not been adjudicated among concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, punishment shall be imposed concurrently in consideration of equity

Furthermore, even if there are a number of crimes for which judgment to be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and conclusive, all of the crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive shall be deemed to be concurrent crimes with the crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, in this case, a sentence shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where all of the crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive with respect to a crime which

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9678 Decided March 23, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209 Decided October 23, 2008). However, in light of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act’s language, legislative intent, etc., if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive even if there exists concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence shall not be imposed, or mitigated or exempted, by taking into account the case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948 Decided October 27, 2011). B.

The first instance shall be made by the defendant.