The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by Defendant Q Q prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the lower court.

According to the records, Defendant Qua was sentenced to three years to imprisonment with labor for a crime, such as violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage to Telecommunications Finance and the Refund of Damage, etc. at the District Court on June 9, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as of June 17, 2016, ② the Incheon District Court sentenced the suspension of the execution of ten months to be punished by imprisonment with labor for fraud on July 7, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as of January 19, 2017; ③ the previous conviction of the above crimes ② the crime of fraud was committed before the final and conclusive judgment for the crime of violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Fraud in Telecommunications Finance and the Refund of Damage.

Therefore, the crime of this case and the crime of violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage Caused by Telecommunications Finance and the Refund of Damage, and the crime of fraud are concurrent crimes established after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the case of concurrent crimes established after consideration of equity and mitigation or exemption of punishment under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and after consideration of whether to reduce or exempt punishment, the punishment shall be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008). However, in the application of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower court determined the punishment of this case on the following grounds: (i) the above crime of violation of the Special Act on the Refund of Damage Caused by Telecommunications Finance and Financial Fraud and the Refund of Damage, etc., on the ground that the lower court did not state the remaining criminal records, and did not state the previous criminal records, and did not state the same simultaneously each of the above crimes, and after consideration of equity and whether to reduce or exempt punishment.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant Q cannot be reversed.

B. We examine the reasoning for appeal by the Defendant S ex officio on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant S ex officio.

record.