The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant, the crime of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment and the crime committed before the judgment becomes final and conclusive constitutes concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this case, if the crime of concurrent crimes which was not adjudicated among those which became final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the crime of which judgment becomes final and conclusive concurrently cannot be adjudicated concurrently with the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive, the punishment shall not be imposed concurrently in consideration of the case where the judgment becomes final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and equity, and the crime of which punishment may not be mitigated or exempted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the crime of which was committed by the defendant constitutes a final and conclusive judgment of imprisonment with prison labor of not more than 20 years, and the crime of which was committed by the final and conclusive judgment of not more than 10 years, 210.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which sentenced punishment in consideration of the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 2 and equity in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to the instant crime committed after the date of final and conclusive judgment No. 1, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion.