1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal in light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, each sentence (in the event of Defendant A, one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of probation, observation of protection, and one hundred and twenty hours of social service, one year of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, observation of each protection, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) imposed on the Defendants is unreasonable.

Judgment

We examine the reasons for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

"A crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and a 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, where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is concurrently adjudicated and where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered became final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act cannot be adjudicated concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, punishment shall not be imposed concurrently in consideration of equity and equity pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal principles, according to records, it is evident that Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and six months on April 17, 2014 and the final and conclusive judgment on April 26, 2016, etc.

On December 27, 2016, after being sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor due to a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in the Investment Support of Suwon Franchisor, the fact that the judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment No. 2”) on the other hand, the crime against Defendant B was committed before the final and conclusive judgment No. 1, and the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 2 was committed after the final and conclusive judgment No. 1 is recognized, and therefore, the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 2 is committed after the final and conclusive judgment No. 1. 1.