The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

A seized kitchen shall be confiscated by one square meter (No. 1).

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (6 months of imprisonment, 6 months of confiscation) on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal by authority, the prosecutor applied Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act to “Article 261 and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act” in the applicable law as “Articles 261 and 260(1) of the Criminal Act”, which are dangerous objects of “B” among the facts charged, the prosecutor applied for changes to the contents of the offense, “A” and this court permitted this.

Therefore, this part of the judgment was modified, and this is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the remaining criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below, and thus, one sentence shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the judgment of the court below is impossible to maintain as it is. The prosecutor was sentenced on July 2, 2015 to six months (the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court on July 2, 2015) by the defendant on November 20, 2015 (the second final judgment) (hereinafter “final judgment”).

On June 24, 2014, the record reveals that the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Labor Standards Act at the Seoul Central District Court on June 24, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "final judgment of 1") and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 2, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "final judgment of 2014"), and the facts constituting a crime recognized in the final and conclusive judgment of 201 are recognized respectively, since the crime committed after the final and conclusive judgment of 1 cannot be sentenced simultaneously with the crime of final and conclusive judgment of 2. Thus, since the crime committed after the final and conclusive judgment of 1 is a case where the final and conclusive judgment cannot be sentenced at the same time as the crime of final and conclusive judgment of 2. As such, the relationship between each crime of 201 and the final and conclusive judgment of 2.

3. Conclusion.