The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.

The term "a crime for which judgment to be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall be deemed concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime which has not been adjudicated among concurrent crimes and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive

Meanwhile, in light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime which has not yet been adjudicated cannot be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the punishment shall not be imposed concurrently in consideration of equity and equality, or the punishment shall not be mitigated or exempted.

(2) According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months with prison labor at the Incheon District Court on February 10, 2012 and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on February 18, 2012. ② On June 22, 2012, the Incheon District Court sentenced two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (rape, etc. against Disabled Persons) at the Incheon District Court on June 22, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 5, 2012. ② The crime of criminal conviction was committed before the said judgment becomes final and conclusive, and each of the instant crimes was committed before the said criminal conviction becomes final and conclusive.

Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, even though each of the crimes of fraud in this case was committed not concurrently with the above crime, the court below rendered a sentence against the defendant in consideration of equity and the concurrent judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.