The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as a judgment of conviction was finalized after the crime of offering of a bribe, etc., the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act shall apply to the crime of this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records on the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, each of the crimes of injury in this case committed by the Defendant at the Seoul Northern District Court prior to the final and conclusive judgment on August 25, 2018, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on the grounds of the offering of bribe at the Seoul Northern District Court. However, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on November 25, 2017, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on the grounds of the crime of injury at the Seoul East Eastern District Court before the crime of injury in this case was committed separately from the above previous conviction, and the offense for which the judgment became final and conclusive on August 25, 2018 was committed before the final and conclusive judgment on November 25, 2017.

As long as there exists a final and conclusive judgment as of November 25, 2017 between the date and time of the crime of which judgment became final and conclusive on August 25, 2018 and the date and time of each of the instant crimes, the crimes for which judgment became final and conclusive on August 25, 2018 cannot be judged at the same time at the same time and each of the instant crimes, and each of the instant crimes was bound to be sentenced respectively.

Therefore, even if a final and conclusive judgment on August 25, 2018 exists after the instant crime, there is no room to apply Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act thereto.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2351, Jun. 10, 2011). The Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is without merit.

3. There is no resistance to the Defendant, who committed the instant crime again during the suspension period, even though the Defendant had been sentenced to two years of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for the same kind of crime, on 17 occasions or more of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.