The judgment below

Part 2 and 3 of the judgment shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The judgment below

(1).

1. The determination of the summary of the grounds for appeal (in the form of punishment 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, for 2 years of suspended sentence, and for 2 and 3 years of suspended sentence: Imprisonment with labor for 8 months) is unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. Although crimes No. 1 and No. 2 are the same as the victim in the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the part of Article 1 of the judgment, it is recognized that there is a substantive concurrent relationship since the singleness and identity of the criminal is not recognized by changing the period of crime, the content of deception, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do11318, Oct. 27, 2016). The lower court, while taking into account the agreement with the victims of fraud and the criminal facts for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the equity

The court below did not err in selecting and applying sentencing factors.

Although the victims submitted the written application for non-competence to the appellate court, the court below has already reflected it as an element of sentencing.

Although the sentencing guidelines do not apply to the latter concurrent crimes relationship under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, this court does not seem to be unreasonable since the amount of the original sentence as to the part of the crime No. 1 in the holding, even if the court re-examines the sentencing factors, and other factors of sentencing which are set

B. On February 2, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Labor Standards Act at the Busan District Court, etc. on February 10, 2017. On July 11, 2019, the Busan District Court sentenced a fine of ten million won (the part concerning the violation of the Labor Standards Act) and a suspended sentence of two years (the part concerning the crime of fraud) on April 17, 2019, which became final and conclusive on October 17, 2019.

The crime of fraud in a judgment that became final and conclusive on October 17, 2019 is a crime committed prior to the final and conclusive judgment on February 10, 2017.

In applying Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act to the facts constituting the crime of Nos. 2 and 3 in the judgment, a sentence shall not be determined in consideration of equity in the case where a judgment is rendered simultaneously with the facts constituting the crime finalized on October 17, 2019.

Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act shall apply.