The judgment below

Part 1 to 4 of the judgment is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for crimes No. 1 or 4 as indicated in the judgment below, and one year of imprisonment with prison labor for crimes No. 5 as indicated in the judgment of the court below) is too unreasonable (each of the grounds for appeal, which is written on the grounds of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to each of the grounds for appeal submitted by the defendant and defense counsel, are also written on each of the grounds of appeal, but all of the above arguments have been withdrawn

2. Determination

A. In light of the records of this case, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio (the first to fourth of the judgment of the court below), the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on July 21, 2017 by imprisonment with labor for a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Seoul Central District Court on July 21, 2017, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 29, 2017.

Therefore, the above crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the crime of violation of Articles 1 through 4 of the judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive, are in the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment shall be determined in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is judged at the same time in accordance with the first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part of the crime of

[In a case where the appellate court sentenced the punishment for the crimes A, B, and C in which the judgment of conviction became final and conclusive and for the concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, omitted the record of the previous conviction for the crimes B, and did not examine the specific contents of the previous conviction, in violation of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act demanding the sentence for the crimes in question in consideration of equity in the case where the crime in question and the crimes in question have become final and conclusive at the same time in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209 delivered on October 23, 2008).