The judgment below

The part concerning the crime under paragraph (1) of the judgment shall be reversed.

The crime under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below is committed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the crime of paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “crime 1”) and paragraphs 2 and 3 (hereinafter “crime 2 and 3”) in the judgment of the court below are all concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court below should have rendered a sentence against the defendant.

B. Each sentence of unfair sentencing (i) by the lower court (i.e., imprisonment for a period of four months, additional collection, (ii) imprisonment for a period of two months, four months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for eight months at the Seoul Southern District Court on January 11, 2017 for the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act between the date of the crime of subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 19, 2017.

According to the above facts, the facts of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the first and the crime of the second and third crimes against the defendant are severed by the above final judgment and they are not in a concurrent crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus,

In relation to the crime of 1st crime not deemed concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, referring to Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do2351 Decided June 10, 201; 2014Do469 Decided March 27, 201, etc. As such, the lower court does not seem to have erred in imposing separate punishment for the crime of 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine disputing this part is without merit.

B. Of the lower judgment, the Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing on the part of the crime No. 1 is relatively long-term detention, including a separate case, and thus recognized his mistake and reflects his depth. This case is a simple acceptance of narcotics, such as the fact that there is a high possibility of criticism as a criminal act during the convict life, but the quantity of the accepted narcotics is not much high, and the Defendant’s age and character, character, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime.