The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

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

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 punishment shall be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity and equity, or the punishment shall not be mitigated or remitted.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for fraud at the Suwon District Court on August 24, 2015 and one year of suspended execution, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 1, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “final and conclusive judgment”), and thereafter, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution on September 23, 2016 at the Suwon District Court on September 23, 2016 and sentenced to two years of suspended execution (hereinafter referred to as “second final and conclusive judgment”). Each crime of evading compulsory execution as stated in the second final and conclusive judgment constitutes a crime of evading compulsory execution and a crime of evading compulsory execution after the date on which the first final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, each of the crimes of evading compulsory execution constitutes a crime of evading compulsory execution and a crime of violating Article 21 of the final and conclusive judgment after the date on which the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive.

Nevertheless, the lower court sentenced the instant crime of fraud committed on April 28, 2016, which became final and conclusive after the date of final and conclusive judgment of the first instance court, by taking account of equity in cases where the said judgment is rendered simultaneously with the crime of evading compulsory execution of the second final and conclusive judgment under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is correct.