The judgment of the court below is reversed.

It is against the Labor Standards Act with respect to F in the list of crimes set forth in the attached Table 2 that the Defendant held.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

A. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the former part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime not yet adjudicated could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive, the concurrent crime relationship after Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and the sentence of punishment or punishment may not be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do948, Oct. 27, 201; 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012; 2012Do9295, Sept. 14, 201). Since several crimes for which judgment was not yet rendered have become final and conclusive before and after the judgment became final and conclusive, the relationship between the defendant and the former part of Article 371 and the latter part of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to have been established separately between the two crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do13614, supra.

8.2. The judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “final and conclusive judgment”) and the facts constituting the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 2 are recognized as having existed prior to the date of final and conclusive judgment No. 1.

According to the above facts, the second final judgment is a crime.