The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle in holding a suspended sentence against the defendant, even though the defendant was disqualified for suspended sentence because the defendant did not neglect the suspended sentence at the time of rendering a judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 40 hours of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The meaning of the proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act that “a person in whose case five years have not passed since the completion of, or exemption from, a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment,” includes not only a case where five years have not passed since the completion of, or exemption from, the execution of the sentence, but also a case where the period of the suspension of the execution has not elapsed since, of the sentence (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1246, Aug. 14, 1992). However, according to the records, the defendant can be recognized on November 29, 2012 as having been sentenced to two years of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor or a heavier punishment at the Jeju District Court for fraud, etc. on November 29, 2012, which became final and conclusive on November 29, 2012, the court below sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years, which is prior to the expiration of the above suspended sentence.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for disqualifications during the suspension of execution, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit. Thus, the decision of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the argument of unfair sentencing, and the decision is again rendered as follows.

[Separate Judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court and summary of evidence are the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below.