1. As to the grounds of appeal related to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the term “a crime for which a judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” falls under concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this case, under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced to punishment in consideration of equity in cases where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered concurrently cannot be ruled with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court recognized that: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year to a violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users on July 15, 2008; (b) on February 26, 2009, the said judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “final judgment”); and (c) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year and six months at the Seoul Northern District Court on July 19, 2012 and became final and conclusive on November 15, 2012 (hereinafter “second final judgment”); and (c) the principal criminal facts recognized in the final judgment were recognized before the date on which the final judgment became final and conclusive; and therefore, (d) the offense of Article 2 of the final judgment and Article 13 of the Criminal Act cannot be determined on the same day after the final judgment became final and conclusive.