The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, a written agreement on the sale of forest land as stated in the facts charged of this case (hereinafter “instant agreement”) was made between the victim and E without the involvement of the defendant. The mere fact that the victim transferred the purchase price to the bank account of the defendant who became aware of the fact due to the fact that the victim was not a party to the instant agreement, and it was merely a withdrawal and delivery to E and G, and there was no intention to commit fraud by the defendant.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) Where there are several crimes for which judgment of ex officio discretion or a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive, all of the crimes committed before the judgment becomes final and conclusive and the crime committed before the judgment becomes final and the crime committed by a group

Therefore, in this case, a sentence shall be imposed on both crimes for which judgment has not been rendered under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act at the same time, taking into account equity and equity in cases where both crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive are to be adjudicated (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008). According to the records, the following facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to a stay of execution for four months in prison due to fraud, etc. in the support for Suwon Friwon and Sungnam, on November 30, 2010; (b) the Defendant was sentenced to a stay of execution on May 7, 201; and (c) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years at the Government District Court on March 24, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 18, 2015; and (d) the Defendant’s crime committed on June 9, 2010 and the above judgment became final and conclusive under Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this regard, the lower court determined the punishment on each of the crimes in its judgment, taking into account only the above crimes, and thus, the lower judgment cannot be maintained.