The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to KRW 5,000,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

“The crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and the 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 and the case for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence may not be imposed concurrently or mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity and the case for which judgment has already become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014). According to the records of the instant case, the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 months and a final and conclusive judgment for not more than 14 months prior to the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Da14, Sept. 217, 2017, etc.).

Nevertheless, pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower court determined a sentence with regard to the crime of destroying property of this case, taking into account the equity between the two final and conclusive judgments and the case where the judgment is rendered.