Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12,000,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In light of the language, legislative purport, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39(1) of the same Act, if a crime not yet adjudicated could not be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment became final and conclusive, the relationship between concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence may not be imposed, or mitigated or exempted from punishment, in consideration of equity with a case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012; 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the records, the defendant’s previous conviction and the sentence against the defendant shall be deemed to have become final and conclusive by having been sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 months and 10 months prior to the suspension of execution of sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 years, but not more than 10 years prior to 20 years.

Therefore, since the crime of this case was committed before the first offense and the first offense could not be judged at the same time, it cannot be established a single concurrent offense relationship after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act cannot be applied.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the crime of this case and the crime of first conviction are concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In light of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Code, punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in the case of judgment at the same time with the crime of the first criminal record.