The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the part which rejected the application of the applicant for compensation, shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (eight years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

(a) Crimes for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive prior to the final and conclusive judgment falls under concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, punishment shall be imposed on such crimes in consideration of equity among concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive

Where there exist several final and conclusive judgments which are the basis for latter concurrent crimes in Article 37 of the Criminal Act, equity should be taken into account when a judgment is rendered simultaneously with respect to all such final and conclusive judgments. In the application of statutes, the mere omission of some of such final and conclusive judgments does not necessarily lead to the failure to take account of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9678, Mar. 23, 2006). Furthermore, in a case where it is recognized that the examination of some of such final and conclusive judgments was not conducted by itself, the foregoing consideration of equity should be taken into account.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209 Decided October 23, 2008). B.

According to the records of this case, the defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for embezzlement at the Incheon District Court on August 15, 2014 and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on April 29, 2015. ② On September 4, 2014, Incheon District Court sentenced three months to fraud and embezzlement at the Incheon District Court on April 18, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 18, 2015. Each of the crimes of this case can be recognized as facts which were committed before the final judgment of the above. Accordingly, each of the crimes of this case is in the relation between ①, ② the crimes of the former and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and is in the relation of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with the former and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.