1. In light of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to the assertion that an omission of processing of single concurrent crimes was made, if a crime for which judgment has not yet been made could not be judged simultaneously with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the sentence shall not be imposed concurrently in consideration of equity and equity, or the sentence shall not be mitigated or exempted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948, Oct. 27, 2011). According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul Western District Court to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Military Service Act at the Seoul Western District Court on June 14, 2013; the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 22, 2013; ② the crime of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Western District Court on February 12, 2015; and ② the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 21, 215.

Based on these facts, the lower court determined to the effect that: (a) each crime of the 2014 senior group 1-A, 2626 senior group 1-2, 2015 senior group 295 senior group 295 senior group 2015 senior group 2996 of senior group 2015 was final and conclusive; and (b) the punishment cannot be mitigated or exempted pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that the crime of the criminal record was committed simultaneously from the beginning.

Examining the above legal principles in light of the above, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on concurrent crimes by Article 37 of the Criminal Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the assertion that the time limit for filing a complaint has lapsed, a complaint may not be filed after the lapse of six months from the date on which the offender becomes aware of a crime subject to victim's complaint, in the main sentence of Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Here, it means that a person who has the right to file a complaint becomes aware of an offender from the perspective of ordinary people and becomes aware of a crime and an offender to the extent that the person who has the right to file a complaint can file a complaint.