The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of the second 2019 order 263 case.

1. The sentencing of the lower court on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the 2019 Highest 263 Incident: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and the 2019 Highest 5792: imprisonment with labor for 2 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In light of the relevant legal principles and the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39(1) of the same Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship between the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established and the relationship between the latter part of Article 39 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and it is reasonable to interpret that the sentence may not be imposed or the sentence may not be mitigated

As there is no final and conclusive judgment, Article 38 of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to apply to several crimes that have not yet been adjudicated before and after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, where several crimes that had not yet been adjudicated were committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment, and where there was no final and conclusive judgment, the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act among such several crimes, and thus, Article 38 of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). (b) The lower court’s judgment is that the crime of the first half of Article 2019 (hereinafter “the second half of Article 2019”) was committed on February 22, 2017, and the crime of the second half of Article 2019 and the crime of the second half of Article 25792 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter “the crime of the second half of Article 2579 of the Criminal Act”).

On this part of the report, the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code was applied, but the punishment was determined in consideration of equity in the case of a joint trial by applying Article 39, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.

(c)

On August 27, 2015, the court below held that ① the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a fine of three million won for embezzlement, etc. at the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch on August 27, 2015, and on April 8, 2016.