A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

A. The sentence of the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, ① the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months to imprisonment with prison labor for an indecent act committed by the Gwangju District Court on July 17, 2015, and the judgment (hereinafter “prior judgment”) became final and conclusive on May 13, 2016, and the same court on July 27, 2016, sentenced a suspended sentence of two years and a fine of one million won to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. and sentenced the judgment (hereinafter “after judgment”) on January 20, 2017, and ② Each of the crimes of this case was established before the subsequent judgment becomes final and conclusive, but it is recognized that each of the crimes of this case was committed before the subsequent judgment becomes final and conclusive, and thus, it constitutes a crime of fraud, etc., which became final and conclusive in the subsequent judgment and each of the crimes of this case cannot be adjudicated at the same time at the same time.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which determined punishment by applying Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, even though the relationship between fraud, etc. established in the latter decision and each of the crimes of this case cannot be established, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to concurrent crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014, etc.). (B) In addition, according to the records of this case, it is recognized that the defendant was sentenced to seven months of imprisonment with prison labor by larceny, etc. at the Gwangju District Court on February 9, 2017, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 23, 2017. Since each of the crimes of this case and each of the above crimes for which the judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the equity relationship between the cases where it is judged at the same time pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.