The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Before ex officio determination on the grounds for appeal, “the crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive” falls under concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered and a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is to be sentenced concurrently taking into account equity and where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, punishment shall not be imposed or mitigated in consideration of equity and the crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203 Decided May 16, 2014). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 years and the final and conclusive judgment shall not be deemed to have become final and conclusive for not more than 10 years (hereinafter referred to as “the final and conclusive judgment”).

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination of punishment in consideration of equity with the case to be sentenced together with the crime of final judgment No. 2 pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to the crime committed by the lower court, which was committed after the date of final and conclusive judgment No. 1, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.