The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court below of the second instance.

1. The decision of the court below (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the lower court.

“A crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” constitutes concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, in consideration of equity with the case where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive at the same time, punishment for such crime shall not be imposed concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, in consideration of equity with the case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the case where a final and conclusive judgment cannot be mitigated or remitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014). According to the records, a defendant who committed a final and conclusive judgment after having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Gwangju District Court on July 9, 2009 and said final judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter referred to “the final judgment”).

Nevertheless, with respect to fraud in the first instance judgment which was low after the first final judgment became final and conclusive, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity with the case where the second final and conclusive judgment is concurrently rendered in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.