The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 10 million) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of this case’s judgment ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two months for embezzlement at the Seoul Eastern District Court on July 22, 2010, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 30, 2010 (hereinafter “the first preceding conviction at the time”), and ② on December 23, 201, in the same court, sentenced one year to imprisonment for fraud and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 17, 2012 (hereinafter “second preceding conviction at the time”). Since the instant crime committed prior to the final and conclusive judgment, each of the instant crimes and the instant judgment committed committed committed all the crimes committed prior to the final and conclusive judgment under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for the instant crime in consideration of equity and cases where each of the instant crimes and each of the said judgments becomes final and conclusive simultaneously under Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, the court below did not state only the first criminal record and omitted the second criminal record in all facts, and did not find any trace of examining the specific contents of the second criminal record while the judgment related to the second criminal record was bound to the records of this case. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the court below sentenced the crime of this case by taking into account the equity between the crimes for which each judgment became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the cases for which the judgment is rendered.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without omitting the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ground of ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied Judgment] Summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court, the gist of the evidence is exempted from the judgment of the court below.