The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1-A of the judgment of the court below, 1-41 times a net list of crimes (1).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is inappropriate because the sentence of the court below [10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes of paragraphs (1) through (42) 1-2, each of the crimes of paragraphs (1) through (2) 1-250, each of the crimes of paragraphs (1) 1-2, each of the crimes of paragraphs (1) 43-71, each of the crimes of paragraphs (2) 251-369, each of the crimes of paragraphs (2) 251-369, each of the crimes of paragraphs (2) 251-369, each of which is set forth in the ruling of the court below] is too unreasonable.

Of the judgment of the court below against the defendant, the "paragraph 2-b of the judgment" seems to be a clerical error in the "paragraph 1-b of the judgment".

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

The concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code refers to the crimes for which judgment to face imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and the crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive.

According to the records, on March 3, 2016, the defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution at the Seoul Eastern District Court on March 3, 2016, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 11, 2016.

Therefore, the crimes of No. 1-A. 1 of the judgment of the court below, which the defendant committed on March 11, 2016, are crimes of No. 1-A. 42 net time and No. 1-B. 1-B. The crimes of No. 249 and No. 250 net time and No. 250 of the inundation of the crime committed by the defendant on March 11, 201.

However, the lower court deemed that an offender, for whom judgment became final and conclusive, is also in a single concurrent relationship after Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the offense against which a judgment has become final and conclusive, and rendered a sentence in consideration of the equity in the case of a judgment at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below on the defendant is reversed ex officio.

In addition, Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Code provides that "goods provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts" as objects that may be confiscated.

The object intended to be provided in criminal act refers to the object that was prepared to be used in criminal act but has not been actually used.

The confiscation under the Criminal Code is a criminal trial on the facts charged.