The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, three years of probation, observation of protection and community service work 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the defendant's improper argument of sentencing.

In light of the latter part of Article 37 and the legislative purport of Article 39(1) of the Criminal 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, the relationship between concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established and the sentence cannot be imposed or mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and the case for which judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the records in the instant case, the Defendant was sentenced by the Daegu District Court on October 23, 2012 to two years of suspended sentence for fraud and was finally decided on Oct. 31, 2012; the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on Promotion of the Game Industry from the Daegu District Court on September 6, 2013 to 319.

Thus, since the above crime which became final and conclusive on March 13, 2014 and each of the crimes of this case committed after July 20, 2013 were a crime which could not be judged at the same time from the beginning, a punishment shall not be imposed, or a punishment shall not be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity in cases where a judgment is to be rendered simultaneously pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the crime of this case committed after July 20, 2013.

Nevertheless, the lower court, however, applies the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and applies Article 39(1) to the Defendant, thereby ensuring equity in cases where the lower court simultaneously ruled that the Defendant violated the Game Industry Promotion Act, which became final and conclusive on March 13, 2014.