A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence (4 months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds 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 the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall be deemed concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime which has not been adjudicated among concurrent crimes and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39 (1)

Meanwhile, 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 could not be judged simultaneously with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence may not be imposed, or mitigated or exempted from punishment, by taking into account equity and equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced by the Ulsan District Court on July 8, 2016 to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury and one year of suspended sentence, and the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for an injury at the Busan District Court on May 18, 2017 to be a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive by the court prior to the execution of execution of sentence, and the above crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive.

However, each of the crimes of this case was committed on April 1, 2017, and May 18, 2017, which was after the date of the final judgment of the previous conviction of the previous crime of this case, and thus, the crime of this case and the crime of the previous conviction of the Republic of Korea cannot be judged simultaneously. However, the court below did not err in the judgment of the court below.