The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The two-month imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of the No. 2 of the judgment of the defendant, and the crime of the No. 1 and No. 2 of the judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (a three months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of fraud against the victim F and a one year and nine months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the other victims) is too minor or unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the relationship of each of the crimes of this case.

1) According to the records, on July 8, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to a suspended sentence of six months for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court on the 16th day of the same month (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The above judgment became final and conclusive on the 16th day of the same month (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and on January 13, 2016, the same court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for imprisonment in the 8th day of the same month and became final and conclusive on the 21st day of the same month (hereinafter “instant judgment”) by being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for fraud.

2) However, since all of the crimes of this case were committed before the date of the final judgment of this case No. 1 among the crimes of this case since the date of the final judgment of this case No. 1 and the crimes of this case No. 1, 2, 4-A, and 2, among the crimes of this case from the date of the final judgment of this case No. 1 to the date of the final judgment of this case No. 2, each of the crimes of this case No. 2, excluding the victim L, cannot be sentenced simultaneously to the judgment from the beginning with the crimes of this case No. 2, so the so-called ex post facto concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act are not in a so-called ex post facto concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012).