The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the punishment shall be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity and equity, or the punishment shall not be mitigated or remitted.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court: (a) sentenced the Defendant to nine months of imprisonment and two years of suspension of execution on July 27, 2018 due to a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (in coercion of sexual traffic, etc.); (b) on August 4, 2018, the said judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter referred to as “final and conclusive judgment”); and (c) thereafter, on February 13, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and two years of suspension of execution on February 21, 2019 by the same court (hereinafter referred to as “two final and conclusive judgment”); and (d) each of the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties and injury in the final and conclusive judgment (hereinafter referred to as “the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties”) committed after the final and conclusive judgment becomes final and conclusive on July 21, 2018; and (c) each of the crimes committed at the same time constitutes a final and conclusive judgment.

Nevertheless, the lower court sentenced punishment for larceny of this case committed on January 20, 2019, which was after the date the first final judgment became final and conclusive, by taking account of equity in cases where the two final and conclusive judgments are rendered simultaneously with each offense of the final and conclusive judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.