The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

In the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the term “a crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” shall be deemed concurrent crimes. Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that if there is a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes, the punishment for such crime may be mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity between the crime and the crime for which judgment has not become final

In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of each of the above provisions, if a crime for which no judgment has yet become final and conclusive cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the punishment shall not be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity and equality, or that the punishment shall not be mitigated or exempted.

(2) In light of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment on May 21, 2003 due to the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (special robbery, etc.) at the Seoul District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Southern District Court”), and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 18, 2003. (2) On February 16, 2012, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) and became final and conclusive on October 17, 2012. On the other hand, the instant crime was a crime committed prior to the final and conclusive judgment of a criminal record, whereas the crime of a criminal record was a crime committed after the final and conclusive judgment of a criminal record.

Therefore, inasmuch as the instant crime was established and the judgment could not be sentenced at the same time with the crime of the previous offense, the said punishment cannot be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity between the case where a judgment is rendered concurrently with the crime of the previous offense pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

In the same purport, the court below did not consider the criminal record and the crime of this case.