The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

As to each of the crimes committed by the Defendant [2013 Highest 978] in the judgment of the court below.

1. The sentencing of the lower court [the imprisonment of six months, one year of the suspended sentence and two years of imprisonment, four years of the suspended sentence, four years of the suspended sentence, observation of protection, and community service order 200 hours] on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the lower court [2014 high group 293] No. 1’s attached crime No. 201 to No. 4, 1] Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final, it is reasonable to interpret that the crime cannot be established under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and that the sentence may not be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and the case for which judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012; 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the records, the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years, with prison labor for not more than six years, which became final and conclusive by the Daejeon District Court.

3) The lower court’s judgment [2014 highest order 293] No. 1, 293, 201, 200 a. 2 year a. 1 to 4 a. 2 year a. 1 a. 1 a. 1 a. 1 a. 2 a. 2 a. 1 a. 1 a. 1 a. 2 a. 1 a. 1 a. 2 a. 1 a. 2 a. 1 a. 2 a.

On the other hand, each of the above crimes is deemed to be concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act among several crimes, as if there is no final judgment that became final and conclusive, because it was ② the case in which the crime was committed before and at the same time