The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (the grace period of a fine of five million won) in light of the circumstances of the defendant in light of the gist of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, where a sentence is imposed for a crime which has not been adjudicated among the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable to view that the punishment of the crime for which a final judgment to be sentenced by imprisonment without prison labor or more severe punishment as provided in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act has become final and conclusive is included in “the previous conviction for which suspension of qualification or heavier punishment

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do931 Decided July 8, 2010, etc.). B.

According to records, on May 30, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months and two years of suspended sentence on June 10, 2014 for a crime, such as violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapon, etc.) in the Daejeon District Court’s Support for the Incheon District Court.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, even if the criminal facts of this case against the defendant were committed before the above previous conviction and there is a possibility of concurrent judgment with the above final judgment, the sentence of this case cannot be suspended.

C. However, since the court below suspended the sentence against the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the proviso of Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to each corresponding part of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is true in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.