The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Defendant

A.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendants to the punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant C’s ex officio judgment, Defendant C was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years in the Sungwon District Court’s Sungnam branch on February 27, 2009, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of fraud.

3.7. The judgment becomes final and conclusive, and ② on November 24, 2009, the Busan District Court sentenced ten months of imprisonment for fraud at the Busan District Court on December 2, 2009, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive. ② The above previous conviction is a crime committed before the day when the judgment of the previous conviction becomes final and conclusive. As such, each crime of this case and each crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, all of the crimes of this case and each of the above crimes are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, the court below did not state the above previous convictions in the application of the law under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, and did not state the above previous convictions in the part of criminal facts.

Therefore, the court below cannot be deemed to have sentenced to punishment for the crime of this case in consideration of equity in the case where each of the above judgments was rendered simultaneously with a crime which became final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Such a measure by the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37

B. Although there are no extenuating circumstances such as the fact that Defendant A made a confession of and reflects on the instant crime, the instant crime ought to be considered in relation to the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below that became final and conclusive. However, the instant crime ought to be considered at the same time when the said crimes are adjudicated.