The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. As to the summary of the reasons for appeal (two months of imprisonment), the defendant asserts that the defendant is too uncomparably and unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uncompared and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

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

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 for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and it is reasonable to interpret that the sentence shall not be imposed or the sentence shall not be mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity with

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295 Decided September 27, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469 Decided March 27, 2014, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do929, Sept. 27,

According to the records, on November 24, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on December 2, 2011 (hereinafter “the first final judgment”); and on May 13, 2015, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced one year and six months to imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on August 19, 2015 (hereinafter “the second final judgment”); and the facts constituting the second final judgment are acknowledged as constituting the fraud on May 27, 2010 and on September 14, 2010, which is prior to the final judgment of the first final judgment; and the crime of the second final judgment after the final judgment was committed on September 14, 2010, so long as the crime of the first final judgment was committed before the final judgment became final and conclusive, the crime of this case was not simultaneously determined from the beginning the crime of the second final judgment.

C. Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established between the instant crime and the crime of final and conclusive judgment, and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which provides that when sentence is imposed on a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes, the said crime and the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive shall be considered at the same time and equity, may not be applied thereto.