The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that this judgment.

1. On November 18, 2016, after filing the instant appeal, the Defendant did not submit a statement of reason for appeal within 20 days, which is the deadline for filing the appeal, even after receiving a notice of receipt of the record of proceedings and a notice of appointment of the national defense counsel, and no reason for filing the petition of appeal is stated in the petition of appeal.

The Defendant filed an appeal on June 7, 2017, where the reasons for appeal were not timely filed by the Defendant, and the defense counsel appointed accordingly submitted a statement of reasons for appeal containing unfair sentencing on June 13, 2017. However, this cannot be deemed a legitimate reason for appeal due to the assertion that was filed after the lapse of the period for appeal, which was not timely filed (this case is not a requisite attorney-at-law, and since the Defendant requested the appointment of the defense counsel after the period for submission of the reasons for appeal was not timely filed, the defense counsel is responsible for the Defendant’s failure to submit the reasons for appeal within the period for submission of the reasons for appeal). However, the lower court’s judgment is examined on the following grounds for reversal of authority

2. On August 19, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for fraud at the Daejeon District Court, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months, and on August 27, 2009, the above judgment became final and conclusive. The above crime and the crime of this case for which judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes with the crime of this case after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, taking into account the case and equity in which judgment is to be rendered at the same time under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and the punishment for the crime of this case shall be determined by taking into account the case and equity pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Furthermore, the previous crime of this case committed on July 28, 2010, which was after the date when the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, is related to the crime of this case and the crime of this case committed on July 28, 2010, which was held by the court below.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on ex post concurrent crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion.