The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the relevant legal doctrine and the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence may not be imposed or the sentence may not be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and equity

On the other hand, Article 38 of the Criminal Act is not applicable to several crimes which have not yet been adjudicated before and after the final judgment became final and conclusive, since there is no final and conclusive judgment on the grounds that the crimes committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment cannot be judged concurrently with the crimes for which the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, among several crimes, the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is recognized and Article 38 of the Criminal Act is not applicable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469 Decided March 27, 2014, etc.). B.

Before determining the specific grounds for appeal, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on July 3, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 18, 2015, and the execution of the sentence was completed on December 30, 2015. On September 28, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Jungyang Branch Branch of the District Court on September 28, 2018, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 6, 2018.

However, the crime of fraud, etc. for which judgment was rendered on October 6, 2018 was committed prior to the date when the judgment became final and conclusive on September 18, 2015 (from December 2013 to July 2015). The Defendant’s instant crime of fraud, etc. was committed after the date when the judgment became final and conclusive on September 18, 2015, and thus, the Defendant’s instant crime of fraud, etc. was committed after the date when the judgment became final and conclusive on September 18, 2015.