Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) On September 30, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years to imprisonment with prison labor for night room, intrusion, larceny, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court on October 10 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 15, 2011 (hereinafter “the first final and conclusive judgment”); on February 23, 2011, the Seoul Eastern District Court sentenced four months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Seoul East Eastern District Court on March 3, 2011 (hereinafter “the second final and conclusive judgment”); and on November 28, 2014, the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 6, 2015.

(2) The crime of the second final and conclusive judgment is a crime committed before the date of the final and conclusive judgment, or a crime of the third final and conclusive judgment is committed after the date of the final and conclusive judgment.

B. (1) In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime which has not yet been adjudicated cannot be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relation 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 cannot be imposed or the sentence cannot be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity with the case where judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to

(2) As the instant crime occurred prior to the date of the final and conclusive judgment, the lower court sentenced the instant crime to punishment by taking account of the crime and equity between the crime of the third final and conclusive judgment under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, although the instant crime falls under the case where the judgment cannot be pronounced simultaneously with the crime of the third final and conclusive judgment, the lower court sentenced the instant crime to punishment by taking into account the crime of the third final and conclusive judgment under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.