The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The term “a crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive” refers to concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, considering equity in cases where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is to be concurrently tried, and where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, punishment shall not be imposed concurrently or mitigated or exempted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 months and the final and conclusive judgment for which judgment has already become final and conclusive on October 2, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du174, Jun. 27, 2016).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act that sentenced punishment in consideration of the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 2 and the equality of the charged facts of this case under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio. Thus, without having to make a judgment on the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applied.