The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of the Defendant’s shouldering of beer disease or assaulting the victim at the time of the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant special robbery on the basis of H’s investigative agency and legal statement with no credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution) is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below's ex officio determination, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months from September 30, 208 to October 13, 2008; the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months from September 8, 2009; and the above judgment on September 16, 2009 (hereinafter "the first final judgment") became final and conclusive; ② from September 21, 2008 to October 15, 2008 and from March 17, 2009 to May 6, 2009; and ② from March 2009 to May 21, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc. and Promotion of Game Industry; and ③ from the Seoul District Court's final and conclusive judgment of February 21, 2012 to March 23, 2019.

However, since the crime of this case committed on May 29, 2008, which was before each of the above judgments became final and conclusive, and the relationship between each of the above final and conclusive judgments and the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment of this case shall be determined by taking into account equity and the concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008). Nevertheless, the lower court held that only the instant crime and the first final judgment constitute concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.