Defendant .

A. In regard to the crimes against Victim C in the first sentence No. 2015 group 146 of the judgment below (as to the crimes in the second sentence of 2015 group as to the judgment below: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month and one year and 2015 group 1258 group as to the judgment below: imprisonment with prison labor for two months, two months, and one year and three months for each of the crimes in the second sentence of 2015 group 115 group 1230 group and 1258 group as to the second sentence of 2015 group as to the judgment below, and one year and three months) that are deemed unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before ex officio determination of the public prosecutor and the reasons for appeal by the defendant, the term “a crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive” constitutes concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, in consideration of the equality in cases where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is to be sentenced concurrently, punishment for the relevant crime shall not be imposed concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014). According to the records of this case, where the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 years and the final and conclusive judgment which became final and conclusive on January 21, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the final and conclusive judgment”).