We reverse the judgment of the court below.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor in three months for the crime of fraud.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced the defendant (the first instance court in the first instance: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and the second instance in the second instance: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

A. As to the first instance judgment as to the first instance judgment, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment on November 12, 2014 due to embezzlement, violation of Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving), etc. at the Incheon District Court, and the sentence became final and conclusive on January 9, 2015. The first instance court’s judgment [2017 senior group 2666] was prior to the date on which the said judgment became final and conclusive, while the first instance court’s [2018 senior group 933] committed the crime in violation of Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) was later than the date on which the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment [2017 senior group 2666] Inasmuch as the crime of fraud is in a concurrent relationship between embezzlement, etc. for which judgment became final and conclusive on January 9, 2015, and Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower court [2017 senior group 2666] / [2017 senior group 2666] / [2018 senior group 933] / [2018 senior group / road traffic law violation (unlicensed driving] / 933), the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding each of

In this respect, the first instance judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

B. As to the second instance judgment as to November 12, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) at the Incheon District Court, etc. on September 10, 2015, and completed the execution of the sentence at an Ansan Prison on September 10, 2015, and the lower court [202 / [202] the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) constitutes a crime committed within three years from the completion of the execution of the said sentence.

Therefore, the second instance court erred by omitting the provision of Article 35 of the Criminal Act, even though it should have aggravated punishment for repeated crime, if the Defendant selected to punish the said crime during the period of repeated crime.

In this respect, the judgment of the second instance cannot be maintained as it is.

(c)

This Court is against the judgment of the court below.