The judgment below

The part concerning each crime committed in the table 9, 10 of the annexed crimes table 9 and 10 of the judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (an offense No. 1 to No. 8 of the list of offenses listed in the judgment of the court below: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months, and each offense listed in the annexed list No. 9 and No. 10 of the crimes listed in the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal (as to each of the crimes in the separate sheet Nos. 9 and 10 of the crimes in the separate sheet in the judgment), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for larceny and intrusion upon residence at the Incheon District Court on September 5, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 11, 2013 (hereinafter “final judgment”) and the judgment was finalized on August 6, 2015 after having been sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for special larceny at the Incheon District Court on March 26, 2015 (hereinafter “final judgment”), and the crime of each of the crimes listed in the table No. 9, 10 of the crimes listed in the attached Form No. 1 of the lower judgment and the crime of final judgment No. 1 was committed before the date the final judgment became final and conclusive. However, according to the reasoning, each of the crimes listed in the final judgment No. 2 may be recognized after the final and conclusive judgment No. 9 and 10 of the attached Table No. 1, and each of the crimes must be considered at the same time when determining equity.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined the punishment for each of the crimes in the sequence 9, 10 of the annexed crimes table No. 9 and 10, and made a mistake to consider the equity in the case of a judgment concurrently with each of the crimes in the final and conclusive judgment, not with the final and conclusive judgment No. 1.

Ultimately, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Code, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and this part of the judgment below is no longer maintained.

B. There is no change of circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the judgment of the court below regarding the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing (as to each crime committed in the sequence 1 through 8 of the annexed crime list in the judgment below), and multiple conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case.