Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

A. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established and that the sentence may not be imposed or mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity and equity in the concurrent decision pursuant

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469 Decided March 27, 2014, etc.). B.

According to the records, the crime of this case (the crime of assault committed on April 29, 2013) is committed before the judgment of two years and six months sentenced to imprisonment with labor at the Incheon District Court to the same crime becomes final and conclusive on January 29, 2014. However, in addition to the above criminal record, the defendant was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence in August by the Incheon District Court for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (doing Vehicle) and the judgment of May 10, 2012 became final and conclusive on May 29, 2014. The crime of which judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2014 was committed before the judgment became final and conclusive on May 10, 2012. Thus, the crime of which judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2014 and the crime of this case could not be judged simultaneously

C. Therefore, the relationship between the crime for which judgment was rendered on January 29, 2014 and the crime of this case cannot be established as a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine in granting sentence in consideration of equity between the crime of this case and the crime of previous conviction for which judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2014 under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal.