The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the judgment of the 2019 Highest 1408, 2019 Highest 1551.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

According to the records, on June 27, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to two months of imprisonment for fraud and one year of suspended execution at the Seoul Eastern District Court on July 5, 2018, and the judgment (hereinafter “the judgment”) became final and conclusive on July 5, 2018. The Seoul Eastern District Court 2018Ra1443 case. The Defendant also was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul East East Eastern District Court on July 13, 2018 and became final and conclusive on November 6, 2018 (hereinafter “instant judgment”). This case is recognized as the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2018No435 case, and Supreme Court 2018Do12174 case.

However, each of the instant offenses in the holding of the instant case was committed after the first judgment became final and conclusive and the second judgment became final and conclusive, and each of the instant offenses was committed after the second judgment became final and conclusive.

On the other hand, each crime of the second judgment is committed by the defendant before the first judgment becomes final and conclusive, and each crime of the judgment in the second judgment cannot be judged concurrently with each crime of the second judgment. Therefore, mitigation or exemption under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act cannot be made.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948 Decided October 27, 2011). However, as there is no final and conclusive judgment on the fact that several crimes not yet adjudicated are committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment, the crimes committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment cannot be judged concurrently with the crimes for which the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive judgment cannot be seen as having been rendered, Article 38 of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed as being applied to the two crimes, since Article 37 of the Criminal Act is deemed to be concurrent crimes among the several crimes, and therefore, a separate sentence shall be determined and sentenced for each crime committed before and after

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469 Decided March 27, 2014). Accordingly, the lower court held each of the cases in 2019 Highest 1408, 2019 Highest 1551.