The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, the records of this case show that the Defendant was ex officio examined: (a) was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on September 22, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 30, 201; (b) on January 13, 2012, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced four months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court; and (c) on January 21, 2012, the judgment became final and conclusive; and (d) the above (i) each crime of this case and each of the above judgments are committed prior to the final and conclusive date of the judgment on the crime of this case in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and all of the crimes of this case and each of the above judgments are concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and a sentence shall be imposed on the instant crime in consideration of equity and equity.

However, in the application of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower court did not find out any trace of examining the facts of the above (i.e., ① the above facts of the previous offense, and (ii) the above facts of the previous offense, and (iii) the records only include the criminal records that can only identify the result of the disposition, and (iv) the lower court did not find any trace of examining the facts of the previous offense through the judgment or the statement of the relevant persons, etc.

Therefore, the court below cannot be deemed to have sentenced to punishment for the crime of this case by taking into account equity and the case where each of the above judgments was concurrently judged under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Such measures by the court below are erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground of the above ex officio reversal is justified.