The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive shall constitute concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime among concurrent crimes provided for in Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive

On May 13, 2015, the record reveals that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. by the Incheon District Court on May 13, 2015 and the prosecutor's investigation report stating the fact that the appellate court's trial is pending is bound. On August 26, 2015, the appellate court rendered a judgment of reversal and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 10, 2015.

On the other hand, the crime No. 1 of the instant judgment among the crimes in each of the instant cases falls under the crime committed on or around June 2013, 2013, which was committed on or around October 23, 2014, and is committed on or before the date the said judgment becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the crime No. 1 of the instant judgment and the crime Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the instant judgment and the crime committed after Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.

I seem to appear.

Therefore, the lower court should have determined the punishment of each of the instant crimes by applying Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act to determine the punishment of each of the instant crimes, after examining whether the judgment on the crime committed in the course of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment became final and conclusive, taking into account the equity between the case where each of the instant crimes and each of the instant crimes which have become final and conclusive.

Nevertheless, the court below imposed punishment without applying Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to the above fraud, etc. for which the judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is without examining the remaining grounds for appeal.