The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

2,350,000 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the Defendant (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 2,350,00) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The lower court stated in the criminal records that “The Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a special injury at the Incheon District Court on December 2, 2016, which became final and conclusive on December 10, 2016,” among the criminal facts, that “The above final judgment (Seoul District Court 2015No. 2015No. 4865) and the crime of the first instance case of 2581 [1] and the second instance case of 2017 J. 2581 [1] and the second instance of 2017 J. 311 (Joint), which were not related to concurrent crimes after the above final judgment, were sentenced to imprisonment for one year, and six months for each crime of 2017 J. 2581.

However, regarding the above final judgment on January 18, 2018, the defendant filed an application for recovery of his/her right to appeal with this court (the early 138th of 2018) and filed an appeal. On February 8, 2018, the final decision of recovery of his/her right to appeal citing the above application was lost as the final decision became final and conclusive.

As a result, the above final and conclusive judgment case is currently pending in the Supreme Court (Do 3728). Therefore, each crime in the judgment of the original court that held that two separate punishments were held on the ground that some of the crimes in the judgment of the original court constituted concurrent crimes between the final and conclusive judgment and Article 37 of the Criminal Act, became concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and accordingly, a single sentence is determined in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act for all crimes in the judgment of the original court, so the judgment of the original court cannot be maintained as it is.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio. Thus, the judgment of the court below omitted each of the defendant and the prosecutor's grounds for reversal.