The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss an appeal is not permitted, and barring any special circumstance, the decision becomes final and conclusive by being notified by means of serving a certified copy of the decision in accordance with Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15914, Jan. 27, 2012). 2. The record reveals the following facts prior to committing each of the instant offenses.

(hereinafter “Prior Case”) ① On January 24, 2018, the Defendant filed an appeal with the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment of appeal for six months of imprisonment with prison labor for night building intrusion theft, etc.

② On March 4, 2018, the Defendant, who was pending in the final appeal, was released on the revocation of detention.

③ On March 29, 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and a certified copy of the ruling was served on April 25, 2018 on the defendant.

3. Examining the foregoing facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the judgment of final appeal in the preceding case becomes final and conclusive on April 25, 2018, on which a certified copy of the judgment dismissing the final appeal was served on the Defendant. Each of the facts charged in the instant case is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime committed prior to the final and conclusive judgment, and the lower court should render a sentence as to the entire facts charged in the instant case in accordance with the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, the lower court determined that the trial of the preceding case became final and conclusive on March 29, 2018, which was the date on which the final appeal was dismissed, and subsequently sentenced two punishment in the text of the Criminal Act to the crime of larceny committed on April 3, 2018 among the facts charged in the instant case, and to the crime of larceny committed on March 10, 2018 and on March 17, 2018.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the time when the judgment became final and conclusive, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

4. Therefore, on the grounds of appeal.