The judgment of the court below is reversed.

On the part of the defendant, the defendant is guilty of fraud regarding victim I (this Court 2020 order 1944 case).

The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months in 2020 order 194 case and 2 years in 2020 order 134 case) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination ex officio as to the part of the case 2020 order 1944

A. The lower court, on August 9, 2017, sentenced the Defendant to six months of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and a fine of five million won on August 17, 2017 at the Busan District Court for fraud, which became final and conclusive on August 17, 2017. The judgment was finalized, but the judgment was final and conclusive, on the ground that the crime of fraud and the crime of fraud in the case of 2020 senior group 194 constitutes concurrent crimes prescribed by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that the crime of fraud and the crime of fraud in the case of 2020 senior group 1344 group 134 group 200 group 134 group 20 years group 134 group 20 years group 39 (1) of the Criminal Act constitute concurrent crimes.

B. In light of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the language, legislative intent, etc. of Article 39(1) of the former part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the former Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship of concurrent crimes cannot be established after Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the sentence cannot be imposed or the sentence cannot be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity with the case where judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article

In a case where several crimes which have not yet been adjudicated were committed before and after the final judgment became final and conclusive, the fact that there was no final and conclusive judgment that the crimes committed before the final and conclusive judgment could not be judged simultaneously with the crimes for which the judgment became final and conclusive cannot be deemed to have been applied Article 38 of the Criminal Act as the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act among the several crimes are recognized as concurrent crimes, and therefore, Article 38 of the Criminal Act shall not be deemed to have been applied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). According to records, the defendant is bound to separately determine and sentence each crime committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment (see, e