The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

A. “A crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive” falls under concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, in consideration of equity in cases where a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive among concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is concurrent crimes, and where a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence may not be imposed concurrently or mitigated, taking into account equity and the case of concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do1203, May 16, 2014; 200Do1203, May 16, 2014).

Nevertheless, according to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower court rendered a sentence with regard to each of the instant fraud crimes, taking into account the equity in cases where the lower court rendered a judgment concurrently with the previous offense.