The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the lower court, on March 4, 2015, found that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months from the Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch to be subject to larceny on May 28, 2015 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 2015, and deemed that each of the instant crimes could have been adjudicated simultaneously with the crime for which the said judgment became final and conclusive, applied the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, 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, it is reasonable to interpret that the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established and that the sentence cannot be imposed or mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity with the case of concurrent judgment

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant, according to the records, was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for six months from a Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court on April 9, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 17, 2014. The crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 2015, supra, is deemed to have been committed from October 17, 2013 to February 2014, which was the date the judgment became final and conclusive on April 17, 2014, and each of the instant crimes was deemed to have been committed from May 28, 2015 and from December 6, 2014 to February 4, 2015.

Therefore, the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established between each of the instant crimes and the crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive on May 28, 2015, and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act providing that when sentencing a sentence for a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among the concurrent crimes, the same shall apply to cases where the relevant crime and the crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive are to