All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant is against the crimes of No. 1, 2, 3-C, 4, and 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months or 6 months or 4 months or 3 months or 6 months or more, or imprisonment with prison labor for 3 months) declared by the original court is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before determining the error in applying the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act to concurrent crimes, we examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

"A crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall be deemed concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime among concurrent crimes is not adjudicated and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39 (

The term "crimes committed before the judgment becomes final and conclusive" refers to cases where the time of completion of the crime is prior to the final and conclusive judgment.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. by the Daegu District Court on July 22, 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 28, 2010. Meanwhile, the crime No. 3-A and B of the judgment of the court below is among the crimes No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the completion of the crime after the final and conclusive judgment of the court below

A crime of fraud described in the subsection shall be around November 21, 201, and B.

Since July 23, 2011, each of the crimes was completed.

Since facts are recognized, the crime of final and conclusive judgment and the crime of Article 3-1 of the judgment of the court of first instance do not constitute concurrent crimes as provided in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the first instance court’s sentencing of punishment in consideration of the crime of final judgment and equity in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act on the ground that the crime of Article 3-1(a) and Article 39(2) of the Criminal Act was committed prior to the day on which the final judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, constitutes a crime of violation under Article 3-1(a) and (b) of the judgment of the first instance. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on

No. 1.