The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Of the crimes No. 1 in the judgment of the defendant, the crimes No. 2 in the judgment of the defendant 1 and the crimes No. 2 in the attached Form No. 2 1 to 4.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (each of the crimes listed in the judgment of the court below No. 1 and the crimes listed in the judgment of the court below No. 2, listed in the annexed Table No. 2: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and the remaining crimes: 2 years) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined at the lower court’s ex officio determination as to the application of repeated crimes, the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. on November 26, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 20, 2015 (hereinafter “instant judgment”) (hereinafter “instant judgment”) at the Gwangju prison on November 24, 2015 can be recognized as having completed the execution of the relevant punishment.

Meanwhile, Article 35 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that a person who commits a crime equivalent to or greater than imprisonment without prison labor within three years after the execution of a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment is completed or exempted shall be punished as a repeated crime.

In addition, Article 2(2) of the same Act provides that "the punishment for a repeated crime shall be aggravated to twice the maximum term of the punishment specified for the crime."

Since each provision of "," only crimes committed after November 24, 2015, for which the execution of the above punishment was completed, are subject to aggravated aggravation of repeated crimes as prescribed in Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

The lower court applied Article 35 of the Criminal Act by deeming that the crimes listed in attached Table 2, 2, 5, and 4, as indicated in the judgment, among the crimes listed in the judgment No. 2, are the crimes subject to aggravation of repeated crimes, but the date and time of the crime listed in attached Table 5, among the crimes listed in the judgment No. 2, is May 25, 2015; and the date and time of the crime listed in the judgment No. 4, from March 31, 2014 to August 30, 2014, is until the date and time of the crime listed in the judgment No. 3, 2014 (from that time until August 30, 2014, the portion “from that time” of the judgment of the lower court No. 3, “from that time, until August 26, 2016,” and it is evident that each of the above crimes is not a water crime committed after November 24, 2015.

Even so, the lower court, on each of the above crimes, aggravated repeated crimes under Article 35 of the Criminal Act, and determined the punishment. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the aggravation of repeated crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Article 37 of the Criminal Act