All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The respective sentences of the lower court (three months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence No. 1 of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The first and second original judgments were rendered against the defendant combined with the first and second original judgments, and the defendant filed an appeal against the first and second original judgment against the defendant, and the court decided to hold the first and the second original appeals together with each of the above appellate cases. The court decided to hold the first and second original appeals against the defendant, and the first and second judgments against the defendant are concurrently held. The first and second rulings against the defendant are related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the first and second judgments cannot be maintained as they are.

B. The crime for which judgment of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive falls under concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced in consideration of equity

Meanwhile, in light of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the language, legislative purport, etc. of Article 39(1) of the same Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the sentence may not be imposed, or the sentence may not be mitigated or exempted, by taking into account equity and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do2351, Jun. 10, 201; 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for eight months in the previous Jeju District Court’s Eup branch on April 14, 2015 and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 22, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “final judgment”) and on April 22, 2015.