The judgment below

Among the parts on Defendant A and Defendant C, each of them shall be reversed.

Defendant

A A As to the first crime.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is unreasonable because of the following: each punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, ten months of imprisonment with prison labor, one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, and one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor) declared by the lower court to the Defendants:

2. Determination:

A. According to the records of the judgment of the court below as to the application of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the defendant A was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of the imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months at the Incheon District Court on June 18, 2009 at the Incheon District Court for the purpose of fraud, and the judgment on June 26, 2009 became final and conclusive (hereinafter referred to as "the preceding judgment").

(2) On December 8, 2011, the Incheon District Court was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Incheon District Court on March 15, 201, and the above sentence was finalized on March 15, 2012 (hereinafter “B B”).

(3) On January 23, 2013, the Suwon District Court rendered a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court for six months, and the said sentence became final and conclusive on May 30, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “third preceding Division”).

However, the crime of the preceding and the preceding is ① the fact that the crime was committed before the final judgment of the court, ③ the crime of the preceding and the preceding is the crime committed before the final judgment of the court below. ② The crime of the preceding and the preceding is the crime committed before the final judgment of the court below.

D. The facts constituting the crime can be separately acknowledged when the crime was committed on May 29, 2013, which was three (3) days prior to the day when the judgment with the previous department became final ( May 30, 2013).

However, the court below's decision No. 4-

(d) Crimes and No. 5- its holding

D. The court below held that the crime is a single comprehensive crime, but the two crimes are in a substantive concurrent relationship, not a single comprehensive crime, since the two crimes are different from the conspiracys between Defendant A and Defendant C, the method of deceiving the victim, and the method of acquiring property, and each separate crime is established. Thus, the court below's decision No. 5

(d)Article 4-B, C, of the Decision, that the crime is committed after the final and conclusive date of judgment with the third party;

(d) crimes and 5-A-B;

C. We find that there is a concurrent relationship between the crime and the crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. There is an error in the application of the law.

(2) In addition, the crime of the preceding is based on (1).