The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is established or not, on July 17, 2018, the defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury at the Suwon District Court as of September 21, 2018 and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 21, 2018. Since the crime and the above bodily injury crime of the defendant, which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court of first instance, are in a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for the crime of the first instance judgment in consideration of equity with the case where a judgment is to be rendered at the same time under the former part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the crime of the first instance judgment before

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 70Do2271, Dec. 22, 1970; 2010Do10985, Nov. 25, 2010). Therefore, each crime of the first and second lower judgment does not constitute a case where one punishment is to be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the grounds for reversal ex officio are nonexistent even though the appellate court joined the appellate case with respect to the lower judgment.

B. We also examine the first and second judgments on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and each of the lower judgments on unfair sentencing.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Even if the Defendant considered the circumstances that the Defendant was able to pay as the grounds for appeal, each lower court appears to have determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court following each lower judgment.

Therefore, the sentencing of the court below is unfair.