The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the following facts are examined as follows: (a) the Defendant was sentenced on November 20, 2014 by the Seoul Northern District Court to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. on the grounds of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 6, 2015; and (b) on October 2, 2013, the Suwon District Court has been sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. on the grounds of a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. on the grounds of a suspended sentence of one year and two months; and (c) on January 3, 2014, the judgment became final and conclusive on January 3, 2014. Since each of the crimes in this case and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the grounds that the crime in this case are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the crimes in this case shall be sentenced simultaneously in consideration of equity.

However, the court below did not state the above two criminal records in the application of the law under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, and did not state only the above two criminal records but also the above two criminal records. In addition, in the records, only the criminal records and the statement made by the defendant in the prosecutor's office can be submitted with regard to the above criminal records. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the court below's deliberation through the judgment or the statement made by the person concerned as to what the specific contents of the above criminal records are stated.

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

3. Conclusion.