The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to determining ex officio.
According to the records of this case, on April 26, 2010, the defendant was sentenced to three years for fraud, fraud, and attempted fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on December 9, 2010, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 9, 2010, ② on August 24, 2012, he was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution in October, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 1, 2012, ③ on April 23, 2015, he was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor from the Suwon District Court on April 23, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 27, 2015, ② the criminal records of this case, and ③ the criminal records of this case, committed prior to the final and conclusive date of the judgment of the criminal records of the above paragraph (1).
Therefore, since both the instant crime and each of the instant crimes for which the said judgment have become final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment shall be determined after considering equity and the mitigation or exemption of punishment, and examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008). However, in the application of the statutes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower court, on the grounds that the lower court did not state only the above (1) criminal records and did not state the remainder of the criminal records under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, determined the punishment for the instant crime after examining whether to concurrently render a judgment with regard to each of the instant crimes for which the said judgment has become final and conclusive and whether to consider equity and to grant mitigation or exemption of the punishment
Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be seen as being reversed in this respect.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.
Criminal facts recognized by the court as well as the summary of the evidence.