The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant No. 1. of the first instance judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each sentence (the first sentence: the imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes set forth in the holding of the first instance court); for the crimes set forth in the holding of the court below 1, 2 and 3; for the crimes set forth in the holding of the court below 4, 5, 6 and 7; for the 8 crimes, 3 years and 6 months; and for the second instance: the imprisonment with prison labor for the 6 months) imposed on the

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, this Court tried at ex officio the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The above court held that the defendant's appeal case was concurrently examined in the judgment of the court of first instance, and each of the offenses of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7-A, 8 and 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment for which concurrent offenses are aggravated under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be exempted from all reversals.

B. On August 2, 2013, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act at the Busan District Court on October 15, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Oct. 2, 2013) on the ground that “The Defendant appears to have been sentenced to a clerical error in the name of October 21, 2013)” (hereinafter “the first criminal record”), which was the first instance judgment, prior to the final and conclusive judgment, for the crimes stipulated in the said judgment, Article 37 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That the lower court sentenced the sentence in consideration of equity between the first criminal record for which the judgment was final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the case for which the judgment was rendered.

Meanwhile, according to the records, on January 7, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime committed before October 21, 2013 due to the Busan District Court 2014 High Order 2428, which was committed before October 21, 2013, and on October 21, 2013, one year and two months. The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 4, 2015, which was after the pronouncement of the first and the second judgment (hereinafter “second criminal conviction”). However, the crime committed before October 21, 2013 among the crimes under subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, and 2 of the first judgment of the lower court and the second criminal records, the first criminal conviction and the second criminal judgment became final and conclusive.