The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unreasonable. The punishment (amounting to KRW 10 million) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. "A crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" constitutes concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, in consideration of equity in cases where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive simultaneously with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, a sentence shall not be imposed, or mitigated or exempted from such punishment, in consideration of equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act and where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be ruled concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 201). The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for at the Seoul High Court for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive on July 15, 20, 14, 20009, etc.).

Therefore, the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 2 is a case where a judgment cannot be sentenced simultaneously with the crime committed after the date of final and conclusive judgment No. 1.

However, the lower court sentenced the instant crime that occurred after the day when the first final judgment became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act in consideration of the crime of final and conclusive judgment and equity, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

On the other hand, according to the records, the defendant on October 13, 2017.