The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, and for a crime of No. 2 of the judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s grounds for appeal.

According to the records of this case and the facts in this court, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten (10) years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Western District Court on September 1, 2005 and became final and conclusive on September 9, 2005 (hereinafter "the judgment No. 1"). After the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two (2) years of imprisonment for a violation of the Forestry Act from the Jungyang Branch Branch Court on May 8, 2008 to the 6-month of a suspended sentence of six (2) years of imprisonment for a violation of the Forestry Act, and the judgment on May 16, 2008 (hereinafter "the judgment No. 2") became final and conclusive. Meanwhile, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one (2) years of imprisonment for embezzlement from the Jungyang Branch Branch Branch Court on October 12, 2007 to the Seoul Western Branch Branch Court on October 9, 2008 (hereinafter "the judgment No. 31).

In light of these facts, even though the crime of fraud under paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below is committed before the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive, the crime of fraud under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below is committed before the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive after the judgment of the court below No. 2 becomes final and conclusive (the date on which the crime of fraud under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below is a single comprehensive crime, and the date on which the crime is terminated, and the defendant has a criminal record of the judgment of the court of first instance which has become final and conclusive separately, and both the crime of the judgment of the court of second and the crime of the judgment of the court of third are committed before the judgment of the court of first instance becomes final and conclusive, and therefore all the crimes of the judgment of the court of second and the crime of fraud under paragraph (2) of the judgment

I would like to say.

Therefore, Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Code does not apply to this case, but it does not so.

Section 1 of the decision of the court below and Section 2 of the decision of the court below, as if there was no 2 judgment finalized.