The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unreasonable as the sentence imposed by the defendant (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

A. According to the records of this case, on August 22, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (ththief) in the support for the development of the Suwon method, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 28, 2012, and the execution of the said punishment was terminated on January 7, 2014 (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment of this case”), and thereafter, the Defendant requested a review of the final and conclusive judgment of this case and made a decision to commence a new trial under the Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2016 Inventory 10, which became final and conclusive on August 12, 2016 in the new trial procedure, and the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months on August 20, 2016 (hereinafter “the said new judgment becomes final and conclusive”).

B. According to the above facts, each of the crimes of larceny, etc. established in the judgment on retrial of this case and each of the crimes of this case are concurrent crimes with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is to be rendered, taking into account equity and equity, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

(c)

In addition, as the new judgment of this case became final and conclusive, the sentence of this case becomes null and void, and thus, cannot be considered as a cause of aggravation of repeated crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17440, Feb. 18, 2016). In this regard, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. Thus, the court below's decision is based on Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above.