A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

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

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 the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and it is reasonable to interpret that the sentence shall not be imposed or the sentence shall not be mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity with

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469 Decided March 27, 2014). According to the records of this case, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Suwon District Court on October 16, 2014 and three years of suspended execution due to fraud, etc. on October 24, 2014 (hereinafter “first conviction”), and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 26, 2015, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced one year of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Northern District Court on March 26, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 3, 2015 (hereinafter “second criminal conviction”), and the crime of the second criminal offense was committed before the date of final and conclusive judgment of the first criminal conviction.

However, since the instant crime was committed after the date when the judgment of the first criminal conviction became final and conclusive, the crime of the second criminal conviction committed before the date when the judgment of the first criminal conviction became final and conclusive cannot be judged at the same time from the beginning. Therefore, the punishment cannot be imposed, or the punishment may not be mitigated or remitted, taking into account the equity between the crimes of the second criminal conviction and the crimes

Nevertheless, the court below determined the punishment of this case in consideration of equity with the sentencing expected to be judged at the same time when the crime of this case was committed, which did not constitute a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion