The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 5,00,00) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

(a) "A crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" constitutes concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime among the relevant concurrent crimes has not been adjudicated and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution on May 19, 2016 by imprisonment with prison labor for fraud aiding and abetting at the Gwangju District Court on May 27, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 27, 2016, and ② on June 14, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution for eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for interference with the exercise of rights by the Seoul Northern District Court and the Seoul Northern District Court on June 22, 2017.

However, the crime of this case was committed before the day when the judgment of the court became final and conclusive, and the crime of this case was committed before the day when each judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Therefore, inasmuch as both the instant crimes and each of the instant crimes for which judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court shall render a sentence on the instant crimes in consideration of equity in cases where (i) the instant crimes and the instant crimes for which judgment became final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act are concurrently adjudicated after examining the details of the previous crimes.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209 Decided October 23, 2008, etc.). C.

However, the lower court did not state the above (2) criminal records on the part of criminal records, and did not state the above (1) criminal records, and it is difficult to find any other circumstances considering sentencing.

Therefore, the court below's decision is a case of this case in consideration of equity in the case where each of the above judgments becomes final and conclusive under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act.